Israel and Zionism

[PizzaSnake]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

[youthathletics]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

Too much coffee or c4 this morning, they get your soy order wrong at Starbucks?

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

Too much coffee or c4 this morning, they get your soy order wrong at Starbucks?

I listened. At least the argument presented was rational and calm, however there's multiple assertions as fact that the speaker really couldn't know to be true. He says that Israel says that they've killed 13,000 Hamas fighters, and thus out of the 32,000 reported deaths by Gaza Health Ministry, that's 19,000 civilians not 32,000. And he says that ratio is common in middle eastern warfare. But how would Israel know exactly who they've killed when they bomb a building full of people? 10 buildings? 1000 buildings? They don't have access to who actually was killed as they nearly always in this conflict don't recover and identify the bodies themselves. They may know of a handful of specific individuals, but it's not as if they have a roster of what they say is 40,000 Hamas fighters and the bodies to count. This sounds much more like our military's estimations of Vietnamese combatant body counts.

Moreover, the Health Ministry (Hamas controlled) and confirmed by international agencies says that more than 12,300 of these deaths have been children. More than 4 years of global of children in all conflict zones globally. And that's not counting the injured. One in four Gazan's on brink of starvation.

Of course the speaker is correct that much of the moral blame must be on Hamas for their use of human shields, but he's minimizing the deaths of non fighters and dismissing that Israel has been doing bombing campaigns in a largely indiscriminate fashion...and that there have been numerous instances now when Israeli soldiers have been purposely shooting non-combatants. It ignores the calls from within a part of the Israeli populace which supports Netanyahu to wipe out all of Gaza.

Now, is Israel doing the carpet bombing and gassing employed by Assad? No.

But pretending that Israel is behaving the same way we've prosecuted recent conflicts is quite untrue. We can commiserate with the emotions the Israeli forces must feel and we can condemn Hamas' tactics, but there's a reality here that Rogan lets go unchallenged in this clip. Maybe he challenges later, but it ends with Rogan seemingly capitulating to or agreeing with the argument altogether.

It's simply more complicated than this speaker calmly asserts.

[cradleandshoot]

So nobody has any ideas how Israel defeats a Hamas enemy that has deliberately intertwined itself into the Palestinian population at the modern day equivalent of the Alamo. How come NO ONE criticizes Hamas for starting this war? Out of a sense of compassion and respect for the Palestinian non combatants why don't the Hamas fighters request free passage for all the non combatants? That way there is no question as to who is fighting who. If Hamas is so brave why are they scared to go mano ah mano with the Israeli Army? Isn't that what they have always wanted? How come NONE of you blame Hamas for starting the war that they wanted. They have gotten the war they wanted. For those of you who understand tactics and logic in warfare... why do you folks think that Hamas chose the October 7 terrorist attack? They knew how Israel would respond and how the carnage would play out in Gaza and how Biden would throw Bibi under the bus and the wedge they wanted between the US and Israel is now solidly in place. I wish more of you people could comprehend why war is hell. What is happening in Gaza today has been going on since the beginning of time. Only there was never an Internet before that could send real time pictures for the world to see.

[a fan]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

Too much coffee or c4 this morning, they get your soy order wrong at Starbucks?

I listened. At least the argument presented was rational and calm, however there's multiple assertions as fact that the speaker really couldn't know to be true. He says that Israel says that they've killed 13,000 Hamas fighters, and thus out of the 32,000 reported deaths by Gaza Health Ministry, that's 19,000 civilians not 32,000. And he says that ratio is common in middle eastern warfare. But how would Israel know exactly who they've killed when they bomb a building full of people? 10 buildings? 1000 buildings? They don't have access to who actually was killed as they nearly always in this conflict don't recover and identify the bodies themselves. They may know of a handful of specific individuals, but it's not as if they have a roster of what they say is 40,000 Hamas fighters and the bodies to count. This sounds much more like our military's estimations of Vietnamese combatant body counts.

Moreover, the Health Ministry (Hamas controlled) and confirmed by international agencies says that more than 12,300 of these deaths have been children. More than 4 years of global of children in all conflict zones globally. And that's not counting the injured. One in four Gazan's on brink of starvation.

Of course the speaker is correct that much of the moral blame must be on Hamas for their use of human shields, but he's minimizing the deaths of non fighters and dismissing that Israel has been doing bombing campaigns in a largely indiscriminate fashion...and that there have been numerous instances now when Israeli soldiers have been purposely shooting non-combatants. It ignores the calls from within a part of the Israeli populace which supports Netanyahu to wipe out all of Gaza.

Now, is Israel doing the carpet bombing and gassing employed by Assad? No.

But pretending that Israel is behaving the same way we've prosecuted recent conflicts is quite untrue. We can commiserate with the emotions the Israeli forces must feel and we can condemn Hamas' tactics, but there's a reality here that Rogan lets go unchallenged in this clip. Maybe he challenges later, but it ends with Rogan seemingly capitulating to or agreeing with the argument altogether.

It's simply more complicated than this speaker calmly asserts.

Disagree. How many civilians have our drones popped in the last couple of decades? How'd America behave in Vietnam? Or as the man says: when we wiped out ISIS, how many civilians did we hit?

And the Gulf War and Iraq War? Where we killed how many civilians for no other reason than to save a few cents at the pump? And this was AFTER we were the idiots who armed and bankrolled Saddam in the first place?

America does NOT hold the high ground with this stuff, imo. Yep, you can condemn Israel....but you have to condemn America, too.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

Too much coffee or c4 this morning, they get your soy order wrong at Starbucks?

I listened. At least the argument presented was rational and calm, however there's multiple assertions as fact that the speaker really couldn't know to be true. He says that Israel says that they've killed 13,000 Hamas fighters, and thus out of the 32,000 reported deaths by Gaza Health Ministry, that's 19,000 civilians not 32,000. And he says that ratio is common in middle eastern warfare. But how would Israel know exactly who they've killed when they bomb a building full of people? 10 buildings? 1000 buildings? They don't have access to who actually was killed as they nearly always in this conflict don't recover and identify the bodies themselves. They may know of a handful of specific individuals, but it's not as if they have a roster of what they say is 40,000 Hamas fighters and the bodies to count. This sounds much more like our military's estimations of Vietnamese combatant body counts.

Moreover, the Health Ministry (Hamas controlled) and confirmed by international agencies says that more than 12,300 of these deaths have been children. More than 4 years of global of children in all conflict zones globally. And that's not counting the injured. One in four Gazan's on brink of starvation.

Of course the speaker is correct that much of the moral blame must be on Hamas for their use of human shields, but he's minimizing the deaths of non fighters and dismissing that Israel has been doing bombing campaigns in a largely indiscriminate fashion...and that there have been numerous instances now when Israeli soldiers have been purposely shooting non-combatants. It ignores the calls from within a part of the Israeli populace which supports Netanyahu to wipe out all of Gaza.

Now, is Israel doing the carpet bombing and gassing employed by Assad? No.

But pretending that Israel is behaving the same way we've prosecuted recent conflicts is quite untrue. We can commiserate with the emotions the Israeli forces must feel and we can condemn Hamas' tactics, but there's a reality here that Rogan lets go unchallenged in this clip. Maybe he challenges later, but it ends with Rogan seemingly capitulating to or agreeing with the argument altogether.

It's simply more complicated than this speaker calmly asserts.

Disagree. How many civilians have our drones popped in the last couple of decades? How'd America behave in Vietnam? Or as the man says: when we wiped out ISIS, how many civilians did we hit?

And the Gulf War and Iraq War? Where we killed how many civilians for no other reason than to save a few cents at the pump? And this was AFTER we were the idiots who armed and bankrolled Saddam in the first place?

America does NOT hold the high ground with this stuff, imo. Yep, you can condemn Israel....but you have to condemn America, too.

That's fair, certainly up to a point...but don't buy this guy's stats on ISIS fight. He has an agenda.
For instance he used the number of 4,000 fighters in Iraq. That ballooned quickly to over 30,000 in 2014 and continued to grow from both local and foreign fighters coming to the scene to fight.

Yes, Vietnam we carpet bombed, and grossly exaggerated combatant death tolls.

And certainly fair to challenge moral high ground re US versus deaths we were willing to inflict in more recent conflicts, though I think Gulf War was defense of an ally invaded by a larger heavily armed neighbor for no purpose other than they thought could get away with it. We ended it quickly. Yes, the Kuwaitis were allies because of oil, but there was also a major international law principle at stake. And I'd argue that HW chose to end it quickly because the tradeoff in more deaths was not morally defensible, or so he decided.

I kinda feel for W as I think he made his call out of real concern to protect America, not to acquire oil, but it was a tragic mistake.

We do NOT have clean hands.

But the Israelis appear to be prosecuting this war in a way that makes their own moral position very tenuous. It wasn't on Oct 7. But is now. Especially with many voices calling for, effectively, genocide.

[cradleandshoot]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

Too much coffee or c4 this morning, they get your soy order wrong at Starbucks?

I listened. At least the argument presented was rational and calm, however there's multiple assertions as fact that the speaker really couldn't know to be true. He says that Israel says that they've killed 13,000 Hamas fighters, and thus out of the 32,000 reported deaths by Gaza Health Ministry, that's 19,000 civilians not 32,000. And he says that ratio is common in middle eastern warfare. But how would Israel know exactly who they've killed when they bomb a building full of people? 10 buildings? 1000 buildings? They don't have access to who actually was killed as they nearly always in this conflict don't recover and identify the bodies themselves. They may know of a handful of specific individuals, but it's not as if they have a roster of what they say is 40,000 Hamas fighters and the bodies to count. This sounds much more like our military's estimations of Vietnamese combatant body counts.

Moreover, the Health Ministry (Hamas controlled) and confirmed by international agencies says that more than 12,300 of these deaths have been children. More than 4 years of global of children in all conflict zones globally. And that's not counting the injured. One in four Gazan's on brink of starvation.

Of course the speaker is correct that much of the moral blame must be on Hamas for their use of human shields, but he's minimizing the deaths of non fighters and dismissing that Israel has been doing bombing campaigns in a largely indiscriminate fashion...and that there have been numerous instances now when Israeli soldiers have been purposely shooting non-combatants. It ignores the calls from within a part of the Israeli populace which supports Netanyahu to wipe out all of Gaza.

Now, is Israel doing the carpet bombing and gassing employed by Assad? No.

But pretending that Israel is behaving the same way we've prosecuted recent conflicts is quite untrue. We can commiserate with the emotions the Israeli forces must feel and we can condemn Hamas' tactics, but there's a reality here that Rogan lets go unchallenged in this clip. Maybe he challenges later, but it ends with Rogan seemingly capitulating to or agreeing with the argument altogether.

It's simply more complicated than this speaker calmly asserts.

Disagree. How many civilians have our drones popped in the last couple of decades? How'd America behave in Vietnam? Or as the man says: when we wiped out ISIS, how many civilians did we hit?

And the Gulf War and Iraq War? Where we killed how many civilians for no other reason than to save a few cents at the pump? And this was AFTER we were the idiots who armed and bankrolled Saddam in the first place?

America does NOT hold the high ground with this stuff, imo. Yep, you can condemn Israel....but you have to condemn America, too.

That's fair, certainly up to a point...but don't buy this guy's stats on ISIS fight. He has an agenda.
For instance he used the number of 4,000 fighters in Iraq. That ballooned quickly to over 30,000 in 2014 and continued to grow from both local and foreign fighters coming to the scene to fight.

Yes, Vietnam we carpet bombed, and grossly exaggerated combatant death tolls.

And certainly fair to challenge moral high ground re US versus deaths we were willing to inflict in more recent conflicts, though I think Gulf War was defense of an ally invaded by a larger heavily armed neighbor for no purpose other than they thought could get away with it. We ended it quickly. Yes, the Kuwaitis were allies because of oil, but there was also a major international law principle at stake. And I'd argue that HW chose to end it quickly because the tradeoff in more deaths was not morally defensible, or so he decided.

I kinda feel for W as I think he made his call out of real concern to protect America, not to acquire oil, but it was a tragic mistake.

We do NOT have clean hands.

But the Israelis appear to be prosecuting this war in a way that makes their own moral position very tenuous. It wasn't on Oct 7. But is now. Especially with many voices calling for, effectively, genocide.

Okay so Hamas has intermingled its fighters with the Palestinian civilians. So how do you suggest they conduct the military operation? Hamas knows there will horrific civilian casualties. They are counting on it. The Palestinian people voted in these terrorists and by and large they enthusiastically support them. So back to my original question...how does Israel conduct a military operation that folks like yourself are trying to compare to genocide?? War is Hell and is never fought with morality in mind. One thing Hamas is brilliant at is knowing how to market their propaganda to exude sympathy for their cause.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

Too much coffee or c4 this morning, they get your soy order wrong at Starbucks?

I listened. At least the argument presented was rational and calm, however there's multiple assertions as fact that the speaker really couldn't know to be true. He says that Israel says that they've killed 13,000 Hamas fighters, and thus out of the 32,000 reported deaths by Gaza Health Ministry, that's 19,000 civilians not 32,000. And he says that ratio is common in middle eastern warfare. But how would Israel know exactly who they've killed when they bomb a building full of people? 10 buildings? 1000 buildings? They don't have access to who actually was killed as they nearly always in this conflict don't recover and identify the bodies themselves. They may know of a handful of specific individuals, but it's not as if they have a roster of what they say is 40,000 Hamas fighters and the bodies to count. This sounds much more like our military's estimations of Vietnamese combatant body counts.

Moreover, the Health Ministry (Hamas controlled) and confirmed by international agencies says that more than 12,300 of these deaths have been children. More than 4 years of global of children in all conflict zones globally. And that's not counting the injured. One in four Gazan's on brink of starvation.

Of course the speaker is correct that much of the moral blame must be on Hamas for their use of human shields, but he's minimizing the deaths of non fighters and dismissing that Israel has been doing bombing campaigns in a largely indiscriminate fashion...and that there have been numerous instances now when Israeli soldiers have been purposely shooting non-combatants. It ignores the calls from within a part of the Israeli populace which supports Netanyahu to wipe out all of Gaza.

Now, is Israel doing the carpet bombing and gassing employed by Assad? No.

But pretending that Israel is behaving the same way we've prosecuted recent conflicts is quite untrue. We can commiserate with the emotions the Israeli forces must feel and we can condemn Hamas' tactics, but there's a reality here that Rogan lets go unchallenged in this clip. Maybe he challenges later, but it ends with Rogan seemingly capitulating to or agreeing with the argument altogether.

It's simply more complicated than this speaker calmly asserts.

Disagree. How many civilians have our drones popped in the last couple of decades? How'd America behave in Vietnam? Or as the man says: when we wiped out ISIS, how many civilians did we hit?

And the Gulf War and Iraq War? Where we killed how many civilians for no other reason than to save a few cents at the pump? And this was AFTER we were the idiots who armed and bankrolled Saddam in the first place?

America does NOT hold the high ground with this stuff, imo. Yep, you can condemn Israel....but you have to condemn America, too.

That's fair, certainly up to a point...but don't buy this guy's stats on ISIS fight. He has an agenda.
For instance he used the number of 4,000 fighters in Iraq. That ballooned quickly to over 30,000 in 2014 and continued to grow from both local and foreign fighters coming to the scene to fight.

Yes, Vietnam we carpet bombed, and grossly exaggerated combatant death tolls.

And certainly fair to challenge moral high ground re US versus deaths we were willing to inflict in more recent conflicts, though I think Gulf War was defense of an ally invaded by a larger heavily armed neighbor for no purpose other than they thought could get away with it. We ended it quickly. Yes, the Kuwaitis were allies because of oil, but there was also a major international law principle at stake. And I'd argue that HW chose to end it quickly because the tradeoff in more deaths was not morally defensible, or so he decided.

I kinda feel for W as I think he made his call out of real concern to protect America, not to acquire oil, but it was a tragic mistake.

We do NOT have clean hands.

But the Israelis appear to be prosecuting this war in a way that makes their own moral position very tenuous. It wasn't on Oct 7. But is now. Especially with many voices calling for, effectively, genocide.

Okay so Hamas has intermingled its fighters with the Palestinian civilians. So how do you suggest they conduct the military operation? Hamas knows there will horrific civilian casualties. They are counting on it. The Palestinian people voted in these terrorists and by and large they enthusiastically support them. So back to my original question...how does Israel conduct a military operation that folks like yourself are trying to compare to genocide?? War is Hell and is never fought with morality in mind. One thing Hamas is brilliant at is knowing how to market their propaganda to exude sympathy for their cause.

Would require more Israeli casualties, but would need to be street to street not big bombs. It’s certainly understandable why one would prefer bombing.

Also no bombing and attacks of people receiving humanitarian aid…and greatly increase humanitarian aid.

And no, less than a majority of Gazans ever voted for Hamas and that was over a decade ago. They have not allowed free and fair elections since then. You know this, so why repeat misinformation? We can agree that Hamas are terrorists and that using human shields is morally reprehensible, and understand Israeli anger, without blaming Gaza’s civilians in general or dooming them to Stone Age destruction and starvation.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Interesting discussion on how Hamas has played the moral-card in war: https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1777301113412239442

Have a less polluted source? Hard to lay down in the cesspool and come up unbesmirched.

Or, alternately, espouse the ideas yourself so they can be discussed.

I haven't, and won't, patronize Elon, but let me guess:

Claims of hypocrisy are advanced. That it?

Pare it down and present the ideas, free from the BS.

Or not. Your choice, of course. But it appears as if you wish to enter into debate and discussion.

Too much coffee or c4 this morning, they get your soy order wrong at Starbucks?

I listened. At least the argument presented was rational and calm, however there's multiple assertions as fact that the speaker really couldn't know to be true. He says that Israel says that they've killed 13,000 Hamas fighters, and thus out of the 32,000 reported deaths by Gaza Health Ministry, that's 19,000 civilians not 32,000. And he says that ratio is common in middle eastern warfare. But how would Israel know exactly who they've killed when they bomb a building full of people? 10 buildings? 1000 buildings? They don't have access to who actually was killed as they nearly always in this conflict don't recover and identify the bodies themselves. They may know of a handful of specific individuals, but it's not as if they have a roster of what they say is 40,000 Hamas fighters and the bodies to count. This sounds much more like our military's estimations of Vietnamese combatant body counts.

Moreover, the Health Ministry (Hamas controlled) and confirmed by international agencies says that more than 12,300 of these deaths have been children. More than 4 years of global of children in all conflict zones globally. And that's not counting the injured. One in four Gazan's on brink of starvation.

Of course the speaker is correct that much of the moral blame must be on Hamas for their use of human shields, but he's minimizing the deaths of non fighters and dismissing that Israel has been doing bombing campaigns in a largely indiscriminate fashion...and that there have been numerous instances now when Israeli soldiers have been purposely shooting non-combatants. It ignores the calls from within a part of the Israeli populace which supports Netanyahu to wipe out all of Gaza.

Now, is Israel doing the carpet bombing and gassing employed by Assad? No.

But pretending that Israel is behaving the same way we've prosecuted recent conflicts is quite untrue. We can commiserate with the emotions the Israeli forces must feel and we can condemn Hamas' tactics, but there's a reality here that Rogan lets go unchallenged in this clip. Maybe he challenges later, but it ends with Rogan seemingly capitulating to or agreeing with the argument altogether.

It's simply more complicated than this speaker calmly asserts.

Disagree. How many civilians have our drones popped in the last couple of decades? How'd America behave in Vietnam? Or as the man says: when we wiped out ISIS, how many civilians did we hit?

And the Gulf War and Iraq War? Where we killed how many civilians for no other reason than to save a few cents at the pump? And this was AFTER we were the idiots who armed and bankrolled Saddam in the first place?

America does NOT hold the high ground with this stuff, imo. Yep, you can condemn Israel....but you have to condemn America, too.

That's fair, certainly up to a point...but don't buy this guy's stats on ISIS fight. He has an agenda.
For instance he used the number of 4,000 fighters in Iraq. That ballooned quickly to over 30,000 in 2014 and continued to grow from both local and foreign fighters coming to the scene to fight.

Yes, Vietnam we carpet bombed, and grossly exaggerated combatant death tolls.

And certainly fair to challenge moral high ground re US versus deaths we were willing to inflict in more recent conflicts, though I think Gulf War was defense of an ally invaded by a larger heavily armed neighbor for no purpose other than they thought could get away with it. We ended it quickly. Yes, the Kuwaitis were allies because of oil, but there was also a major international law principle at stake. And I'd argue that HW chose to end it quickly because the tradeoff in more deaths was not morally defensible, or so he decided.

I kinda feel for W as I think he made his call out of real concern to protect America, not to acquire oil, but it was a tragic mistake.

We do NOT have clean hands.

But the Israelis appear to be prosecuting this war in a way that makes their own moral position very tenuous. It wasn't on Oct 7. But is now. Especially with many voices calling for, effectively, genocide.

Okay so Hamas has intermingled its fighters with the Palestinian civilians. So how do you suggest they conduct the military operation? Hamas knows there will horrific civilian casualties. They are counting on it. The Palestinian people voted in these terrorists and by and large they enthusiastically support them. So back to my original question...how does Israel conduct a military operation that folks like yourself are trying to compare to genocide?? War is Hell and is never fought with morality in mind. One thing Hamas is brilliant at is knowing how to market their propaganda to exude sympathy for their cause.

Would require more Israeli casualties, but would need to be street to street not big bombs. It’s certainly understandable why one would prefer bombing.

Also no bombing and attacks of people receiving humanitarian aid…and greatly increase humanitarian aid.

And no, less than a majority of Gazans ever voted for Hamas and that was over a decade ago. They have not allowed free and fair elections since then. You know this, so why repeat misinformation? We can agree that Hamas are terrorists and that using human shields is morally reprehensible, and understand Israeli anger, without blaming Gaza’s civilians in general or dooming them to Stone Age destruction and starvation.

I don’t believe anyone under the age of 35 participated in the Hamas election and I also believe I read that Hamas received 44% of the vote when elected to govern.

[youthathletics]

https://x.com/VDHanson/status/1778248796998434825

[cradleandshoot]

A profound warning to Iran from Joe Biden regarding an attack on Israel... Don't. That is almost as profound as Gen McAuliffe replying NUTS to the Germans. There is one huge difference. The Germans respected the screaming eagles. The Iranians know that Biden is an impotent joke of a leader and they dont respect him or anything he says.

[cradleandshoot]

https://x.com/VDHanson/status/1778248796998434825

We are also living in an alternate universe where the more time that passes more people blame Israel for the hostage situation. Six months pass and some peoples memory turns to mush.

[youthathletics]

Iran getting started: https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-new ... index.html

Maybe they are spending some of the money we sent them.

[cradleandshoot]

If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly this is the bottom line. Israel hit Iran in Syria and Iran responded as they said they would. Is it no harm no foul call it a day? The next move will be up to Bibi.

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... hu/678067/

"On April 1, Israel killed Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by attacking Iran’s consulate in Damascus. Iran spent the next two weeks promising revenge, and the world tried to imagine what form that revenge might take. Missile strikes on the Golan Heights? Bombing an Israeli embassy? (Iran has practice at this one.) When I flew from Dubai to Tel Aviv a few days later, I wondered whether Iran would go old-school and attack an El Al check-in counter, the way the terrorists used to in the 1980s. Emirati airport authorities, it turns out, had anticipated that move. They placed the El Al counter next to that of an Iranian airline, so anyone who rolled a grenade at Israelis would also do some damage to passengers bound for the Iranian holy city of Mashhad.

Now we know the form of the retaliation. Late Saturday night, about an hour before midnight Israel time, Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles from its own territory, as well as from Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, at the country it refers to as “the Zionist entity.” Almost all were shot down, officials said, eliminated by Israeli air defenses and, notably, by the militaries of the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. No drones even entered Israeli airspace. This morning, Admiral Daniel Hagari, the Israeli army spokesman, beamingly called the defensive operation an “unprecedented success.” The Iranians, for their part, professed happiness with the outcome, though they also seemed eager to forestall an Israeli counterstrike. While the drones were still in the sky, Iran’s UN mission tweeted that the matter of the assassination “can [now] be deemed concluded.”

To summarize: Israel blew up an Iranian general in an Iranian diplomatic mission—the sort of facility normally inviolable under international law, though the Iranian regime is rather famous for its disregard of such proprieties—and for two weeks, Israel and its allies have been preparing for a regional war or unprecedented terror campaign, something that would make the October 7 Hamas attack and the subsequent Gaza War look like mere prelude. Instead, after its drones and missiles were swatted down like flies, Iran is now suggesting that the two countries call it a tie.

This tie is an astonishing Israeli win. As Hagari suggested, it is an operational triumph, because it demonstrated that swarming attacks from a sophisticated adversary are not effective against Israel over long ranges. These are the same Iranian-made drones that, in Russian hands, have been terrorizing Kyiv for the past two years. In Tel Aviv last night, no air-raid sirens went off. (I didn’t bother setting my alarm, because I was confident that at least a few drones would get through and I’d have to scamper to shelter. I assume many others in Tel Aviv are still snoozing as I write this.) The uneventful night was also a strategic triumph. Iran’s Arab adversaries—Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—all cooperated, taking concrete measures to keep Iran’s response ineffective. Iran’s Arab allies, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, did not enter the operation in a significant way. The Israeli skydome held up. The strategic alliance held up. Israeli kids get a day off school as a precaution, but other than that, my neighborhood of Tel Aviv looks normal, with the same population of bleary-eyed hipsters out looking for cappuccinos. (The only reported injury was to a 7-year-old Israeli girl, wounded by falling shrapnel. Inconveniently for Iran, she was Arab.)

The attack is also a gift to the hapless Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, whose incompetence was universally acknowledged just a day ago. Now, after botching the response to the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history, Netanyahu’s government gathers credit for having repelled the most significant Iranian attack in Israel’s history. This morning, one could argue that Israel is safer than it has been since before October 7. “I think there are strategic opportunities,” the IDF spokesperson said in his briefing, and “we should look for those opportunities.” Netanyahu does not even have to launch a counterattack. Joe Biden has advised him that the U.S. will not support one, which relieves Netanyahu of the obligation. European countries that have criticized Israel over Gaza have stopped to condemn Iran instead.

But just because Netanyahu could decide to do nothing precipitous doesn’t mean that he will. He and his cabinet are constantly in search of new and ingenious ways to squander an opportunity. So today in the Middle East everyone is trying to imagine how they will misspend the credit Iran has just extended them. If Netanyahu behaves uncharacteristically, he could reach out to Israel’s Arab allies, and to its international critics, and try to reboot Gaza negotiations and bring home the Israeli hostages who are still alive. With Gaza at least partially in rubble and in famine conditions, and with essentially zero progress in negotiation with Hamas, some jolt to the status quo is necessary. Hamas has shown little interest in achieving a viable deal, and now its position has weakened slightly, because Iran seems so obviously disinclined to intervene in its favor by regionalizing the war. This reminder that Israel’s enemies are not limited to Hamas, and that Israel owes debts to its Arab friends who wish to see Gazans return to their homes (and who not-so-secretly also wish Israel could somehow eliminate Hamas without fuss once and for all), could catalyze a new Israeli reaction to the conflict.

​​These Arab allies deserve Israel’s gratitude. They also might be reminded of what is in their own interest. After all, Iran’s overseas ventures are not limited to Israel. Iran evidently feels free to violate Jordanian airspace as it pleases. If it is willing to swarm Israel with drones, why not Saudi Arabia too? It already attacked Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia’s largest oilfield, in 2019, an attack that went unanswered by Saudi Arabia and the United States. Iran, its Revolutionary Guards Corps at the front, has already wrecked Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. Who is next? The Gaza war has alienated Israel from these allies, and in particular from their citizens, who see images of the devastation daily on Al Jazeera. Now Israel can point to Iran’s aggression and disregard of national boundaries as a common cause with which to begin to undo that alienation.

Netanyahu’s government is beholden to right-wing elements that have made a hostage deal difficult to strike and post-invasion Gaza planning almost non-existent. These same right-wing elements want retaliation: If Iran sends 300 drones and missiles to Israel, Israel should send 300 back. (Unlike the Iranian ones, many of the Israeli ones will reach their targets.) Now could be the moment for Netanyhu to tell his right flank to stand down. The reasons Israel is not on a war footing this morning—children are merely in Zoom lessons today, and there have been no further call-ups of reserve troops—are technological (an incredible air-defense system) and diplomatic (a partnership extending from the Levant to the Persian Gulf), not ideological. Many Israelis would welcome a shift back to a national-security-focused right, and away from a fundamentalist religious one. Not long ago, Netanyahu had a sort of proprietary hold on that position in Israeli politics. Now the religious right has a hold on him.

Netanyahu is a master of self-preservation, and he knows he likely will not be the one to lead such a shift. His instinct to stay in power would, in that case, come into conflict with his instinct to preserve and improve Israel’s geostrategic position. Unfortunately, in the contest between those two instincts, the outcome is unlikely to be anything close to a tie."

[youthathletics]

~ Blinken: The only thing standing in front of a ceasefire for the gaza people, is Hamas

[OCanada]

I wonder the cost Bengie extracted even with the various pressures.

[cradleandshoot]

It looks like there is a whole new generation of college students picking up the torch handed to them from their 1960s elders. While they protest, intimidate Jewish students and make a nuisance of themselves there is likely an increasing # of alums who may keep their checkbooks in the desk drawer than donate to their alma matter. Biting off your nose to spite your face. There is nothing wrong with a good protest. When you try to become occupy Wall St version 2 the movement winds up doing more harm than good. Time will tell how this all plays out. I do know that Bibi could care less about these protest. He has a war to fight. A good plan of action might be abandoning the campus protests and organize a massive protest that ends at the US Capitol.

[PizzaSnake]

It looks like there is a whole new generation of college students picking up the torch handed to them from their 1960s elders. While they protest, intimidate Jewish students and make a nuisance of themselves there is likely an increasing # of alums who may keep their checkbooks in the desk drawer than donate to their alma matter. Biting off your nose to spite your face. There is nothing wrong with a good protest. When you try to become occupy Wall St version 2 the movement winds up doing more harm than good. Time will tell how this all plays out. I do know that Bibi could care less about these protest. He has a war to fight. A good plan of action might be abandoning the campus protests and organize a massive protest that ends at the US Capitol.

As many commentators note, the current students are not the entirety of the institution. Alum donations do not generally immediately impact O&M.

Now, long term reduction in capital funding can have profound impacts. However, I’d be willing to wager these protestors don’t particularly care about the future of an institution they regard as acting in a feckless and immoral manner.

[NattyBohChamps04]

It looks like there is a whole new generation of college students picking up the torch handed to them from their 1960s elders. While they protest, intimidate Jewish students and make a nuisance of themselves there is likely an increasing # of alums who may keep their checkbooks in the desk drawer than donate to their alma matter. Biting off your nose to spite your face. There is nothing wrong with a good protest. When you try to become occupy Wall St version 2 the movement winds up doing more harm than good. Time will tell how this all plays out. I do know that Bibi could care less about these protest. He has a war to fight. A good plan of action might be abandoning the campus protests and organize a massive protest that ends at the US Capitol.

As many commentators note, the current students are not the entirety of the institution. Alum donations do not generally immediately impact O&M.

Now, long term reduction in capital funding can have profound impacts. However, I’d be willing to wager these protestors don’t particularly care about the future of an institution they regard as acting in a feckless and immoral manner.

You also have to question how many protestors are actually students.