Israel and West Bank Settlements

[Baducchi]

There’s a portion that would be easy to waive in though. 20-45% probably off the break. At least a couple hundred thousand.

youre more of an optimist than i am

[MDlaxfan76]

There’s a portion that would be easy to waive in though. 20-45% probably off the break. At least a couple hundred thousand.

youre more of an optimist than i am

I gotta agree with you both.

Bad, you're right, vetting would not be easy. Need to take care. Whole lot of bad guys.

But there are many hundred thousand Palestinians who would be productive Americans if they had the opportunity to do so.

I don't know that more dispersion is the best answer for the Palestinians in general, but it's not because many couldn't be appreciative Americans if they had a chance.

Not the same topic, but it's an incredible travesty that we didn't find a way to get more Afghans out...

[Matnum PI]

...

In the Capitol today. And, MDlaxfan, look at the signs. Lots of Jews. Also, look at the Capitol arial video shot, in the center. Numerous Jews wearing tallises and kippahs. They're Jewish and badly want people to know. Also, no Orthodox Jews. I'm telling you, it's a strange thing. And it's real. Has been like this for decades. Jews who are anti-Israel, pro-Hamas.

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1 ... 2Wk-g&s=19

[PizzaSnake]

So, please clarify your statement.

i'm just saying you can't rubber stamp 2.1 million palestinians.

And who said one could, or should?

To review:

"The US has a lot of space and a need to balance the demographic "books" by means other than "forced birth" mandates. How about we "shut up and put up" and welcome the Palestinian people to join the "United States" and give them territory within the vast Federal holdings? Not as a separate political entity, but as part of the happy, heterogeneous amalgamation that is the US."

That is, in fact, what I proposed. "Welcome the Palestinian people to join the "United States" and give them territory."

So where in that do you read "rubber stamp"? Where is the implicit or explicit mention of an immediate entry without some sort of vetting and winnowing? In fact, the next sentence, with the explicit conditioning, "Not as a separate political entity, but as part of the happy, heterogeneous amalgamation that is the US" immediately precludes a deviation from a traditional immigration process (amalgamation), albeit more expansive in scope.

Was the initial negation of a proposition followed by a clarification presented as a contrary restatement of the negated phrase difficult to follow?

Now, if what you are saying is you would like to discuss the particulars of implementation, then do so. Will it be cheap? Will it be fast? Will it be free from detractors? Of course not.

But how often are bold steps to resolve an intractable impasse universally lauded and accommodated? PS, see my signature block...

[old salt]

You now seem to agree there was a "massive intel failure".

NOW ??? I never asserted or implied that it was anything less than a massive intel failure. That is obvious, based on events.

You're making a big deal about my use of the word "trust". I don't think Bibi trusted Hamas to be an honest broker.
He accepted the results of the one & only election & did not launch an all out war to topple Hamas. He never had sufficient intl support for that.
Instead, he "mowed the grass" when forced to do so. He never had an honest broker to work with & neither has any other Israeli leader.

The first exchange we had was about this statement you made:

"Bibi & Israel's other leaders wanted peace so badly, they were tricked into thinking they could trust Hamas.
They were fooled by a very sophisticated disinfo op (see the NYT analyis posted earlier)."

I focused on the "wanted peace so badly" part. That's nonsense. The right wing policies under him pushed settlements displacing Palestinians, with violent support from the IDF as necessary. That ain't "wanted peace so badly".

As we subsequently discussed, the government's policy under Bibi has focused on suppression and subjugation, displacement, ghettoization, and more subjugation. That ain't "wanted peace so badly".

But the Netanyahu policies removed any hope at all for any future for Palestinian self-determination and prosperity. None. Land being increasingly gobbled up by Israeli right wing encroachment. Violently.

Again, your explanation was that "Bibi & Israel's other leaders wanted peace so badly, they were tricked into thinking they could trust Hamas. "

Nonsense.

As usual, you ignored my wider point, & joined your fellow political hacks to launch into a screed aimed at Bibi.
Bibi is hardly the only Israeli leader since Hamas came to power in 2006 who attempted to co-exist with Hamas rather than try to destroy them via military force. ...as if a peaceful resolution with the PLO, Hamas or the PLA was ever a rational prospect.

There's no valid wider point. The current government turned even harder right with the most recent elections, eliminating any even pretense of desire for a two state solution. That's who the leadership has been since 2022. But Netanyahu was clearly only giving paltry lip service prior to that election, as he continuously supported settlement building in the West Bank, the slow erosion of hope for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. And he's been Prime Minister for more than a decade. And a force for 3 decades.

You want to argue about Palestinian leadership? Try Brooklyn.
IMO, the Palestinians have been disastrously led for many decades.

But a large portion of the Palestinian civilians hate Hamas and its ilk. They rule through internal terror. And compete for a "nationalist" appeal through focus on their external enemy, Israel. The worse they hurt Israel, and the worse Israel treats Palestinians in return, the greater their claim for leadership.
A disastrous dynamic.

And, regardless of leadership and the effects of propaganda, the moral reality of the Palestinian cause is real.

You simply can't validly claim that the intel failures were because Bibi and the rest of the current leaders in power wanted peace so badly they were tricked into believing Hamas wanted peace too. Tricked into thinking they had less capability, sure, but not intent. The current leadership, including Bibi,
have hardened views about Hamas...with sound reason IMO. But they conflate that hardened view with Palestinians in general.

I listened to the ex head of Israel's intel a day ago...he said that there are 150,000 Hamas operatives in Gaza, among its 500,000 supporters. But there are 2.2 million people there.

I will make one final attempt to state my position in a way that you cannot reconstruct it into a soapbox to launch one of your political lectures.

Since Hamas came to power in Gaza via election in 2005, Israel has had 8 different governments, 5 of which have been led by Bibi as PM.
They all tried to co-exist with Hamas....until now. They refrained from military action sufficient to eliminate Hamas or reoccupy Gaza.
They were clearly surprised that Hamas had attained the military power & ability to do what they have done.
The disinformation op by Hamas was key to the intel failure.
Until now, they wanted peace so badly that they trusted that Hamas would not, & could not, accomplish what they just did.
This is a paradigm shift.

[Brooklyn]

Nirvana, utopia...but unfortunately there's no chance of this happening given the histories of either.

Yeah, like the status quo is working like a charm.

[Brooklyn]

...

In the Capitol today. And, MDlaxfan, look at the signs. Lots of Jews. Also, look at the Capitol arial video shot, in the center. Numerous Jews wearing tallises and kippahs. They're Jewish and badly want people to know. Also, no Orthodox Jews. I'm telling you, it's a strange thing. And it's real. Has been like this for decades. Jews who are anti-Israel, pro-Hamas.

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1 ... 2Wk-g&s=19

... and not one can be called "anti Semite"

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... s-to-come/

The Hospital-Bombing Lie Is a Terrible Sign of Things to Come

By NOAH ROTHMAN, October 18, 2023

The mainstream-media outlets that raced to affirm Hamas’s version of events in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday afternoon now appear to be complicit in an unmitigated debacle.

The New York Times, Reuters, the Associated Press, PBS, the BBC, and many others raced to repeat with utterly undue credulity the claim that Israeli forces wantonly attacked a hospital, producing upwards of 500 fatalities. The allegation alone shook the world. European and Middle Eastern streets erupted with anti-Israel demonstrations. Diplomatic facilities belonging to Israel and the United States alike were besieged by sometimes violent demonstrators. Jewish — not Israeli — sites were attacked. Meetings between Joe Biden and his counterparts in Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority were canceled in protest. And now, not 24 hours later, the story that they ran with looks to have been a lie. Worse, it was a lie that anyone with an elementary background understanding of the decades-old conflict in the Palestinian territories knew was likely to be a lie at the time.

A survey of the evidence the Israeli government has presented to the public and submitted to the United States for its own independent review presents an uncomplicated version of events. Footage from multiple angles of the Gaza Strip shows at least one missile in an outgoing barrage directed toward Israel failing and descending back onto Gazan territory — hardly an uncommon occurrence given the unreliability of the artillery rockets deployed by terrorist outfits in the Strip. Israel Defense Forces have since released intercepted communications between Hamas terrorists confirming that one of Islamic Jihad’s errant rockets landed “on the right side of the al-Ma’amadani hospital.” Images of the site of the blast show no suggestions that high-power munitions were detonated there. Rather, they reveal a parking lot with various damaged vehicles but no cratering, no rubble, and no evidence of the hundreds of casualties the notoriously unreliable Gaza Health Ministry breathlessly retailed within just minutes of the blast.

On the ground in Israel, Joe Biden has confirmed that the hospital attack was committed “by the other team,” a predictable short-round episode that happens when Hamas and Islamic Jihad take up firing positions deep inside civilian territory and use civilian infrastructure as shields. Nor have we seen much equivocation about Israel’s relative complicity in the deaths of average Gazans more generally. “We have seen them, I think, be very deliberate about where they are striking, continuing to target Hamas locations and away from civilians,” said Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh on Tuesday, when asked by reporters if Israel has thus far “upheld the laws of war.” It took administration officials a few tense hours to issue statements of this deservedly unequivocal nature, but that’s only because they took the time to review the evidence before rendering a potentially history-altering verdict.

This episode represents a black mark upon the media outlets that bent over backward to fill in the obvious gaps in Hamas’s narrative with conjecture presented as absolute fact. According to the most-read story in the Irish Times this morning, “Hundreds [are] still trapped in the rubble.” But what rubble? “It is hard to see what else this could be really given the size of the explosion other than an Israeli airstrike or several airstrikes,” said one BBC presenter on Tuesday, for example. Yes, if Hamas and its terrorist allies were being honest, that’s a likely conclusion to draw. But why on earth would you assume that Hamas and its allies were being honest? Moreover, what other conclusions might we draw about the veracity of the exquisitely precise casualty figures the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza produces, all of which purport to tally civilian death tolls, when infinitely more transparent Israel spent the better part of a week totaling the dead from the October 7 attack?

This was no harmless mistake. It was not an accident. This calumny wasn’t attributable to the fog of war or a misstep by the citizen journalists on social media whom professional reporters look upon with contempt. Had the press responded to Hamas’s claims with some incredulity, cautioned patience, and waited mere hours to confirm events as they occurred, this could have been avoided. But every basic journalistic best practice was thrown out the window in pursuit of nothing more than a sordid little narrative.

This was a deliberate effort by members of the press — the commanding heights of international journalism — to establish the moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas they appear to need. The psychology that produces acts of unscrupulous malpractice like these is for others to judge. What can be said without hesitation is that it won’t be the first of its kind.

Israel’s just war of regime change in the Gaza Strip has not yet even begun, and already we’re privy to libel and slander. There have been and will be more episodes of tragic violence that typify all wars of this sort, but it would be foolish now to assume the media outlets reporting on this conflict are engaged in a dispassionate effort to chronicle events. Rather, they seek to shape events. In the process, they appear invested in undermining not only Israel’s geostrategic position but America’s as well.

[Brooklyn]

National Review. Ahem. Much credibility there, I'm sure. We'll see how things pan out but everyone here is well acquainted with the fact this publication is terribly unreliable.

[cradleandshoot]

one citizen at a time. not an entire nation.

Hmm, a nation? What do you mean?

How about as a people? You know, as humans? That work?

Or, do you feel you get to stand in judgement of them individually and determine their worth?

Hamas is already standing in judgement of humans. Their techniques are somewhat unorthodox and involve pumping human beings like women, children and old people with lead. That is some kinda judgement there kiddo.

Respectfully, What the heck are you talking about? Who discussing Hamas? Stay on topic, please.

Respectfully if you use your noodle my point is not hard to figure out. That would involve you being able to do something your not good at. It is called thinking outside the box. What the heck are you talking about rummy? In case you haven't been paying attention, which is pretty damn clear, HAMAS is front and center to the subject being discussed. What a huckleberry.

[Farfromgeneva]

There’s a portion that would be easy to waive in though. 20-45% probably off the break. At least a couple hundred thousand.

youre more of an optimist than i am

According to some here who don’t understand the words they use and have very poor form interpretive skills I am a misanthrope….

[Farfromgeneva]

Maybe for media matters but the oil scrapper model of squeezing the last shekels out of the octogenarians, and 75yr olds, who live anachronistically and buy newspapers before the customer base dies off could have interesting effects on this ans other geopolitical situations. At least Sheldon Adelson has shuffled off this mortal coil now or look
Out for his Nevada paper!

Dozens of Alden-owned newspapers run editorial urging media to call Hamas a terrorist group

Sara Fischer
More than five dozen daily newspapers owned by investment firm Alden Global Capital ran an editorial on Wednesday urging the news media to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization and its Oct. 7 attack on Israel as a terrorist attack.

Why it matters: Some newsrooms that are avoiding the term argue it's become too politicized. Others say the term accurately describes the group and the attack or that avoiding it normalizes Hamas' actions.

Details: The editorials are running across all 65 of the daily newspapers owned by MediaNews Group and Tribune Publishing, two local news companies that are both owned by Alden Global Capital.

Some editorials began publishing online Tuesday. Others were published in print Wednesday.
The decision to run the editorial was made by MediaNews Group and Tribune Enterprises leadership, not the editorial boards of each individual newspaper. A source confirmed that company ownership was involved in the decision.
What they're saying: "We ran the editorial in all MediaNews Group and Tribune Enterprises daily newspapers because our commitment to accuracy in reporting is universal. The Hamas attack on Israel was terrorism and those who carried it out are terrorists," per a statement provided to Axios on behalf of both MediaNews Group and Tribune Enterprises.

Examples of major newspapers where the editorials ran include The Baltimore Sun, The New York Daily News, and The Denver Post.
Between the lines: The editorial argues the "there should be no debate over the language we use to describe Hamas and its depraved Oct. 7 attack" on Israel.

"Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the acts of its agents on Oct. 7, when they crossed the border into Israel with the express intent of killing and kidnapping civilians, were terrorism. That makes them terrorists," the editorial reads.
"While some have suggested Hamas' political role in Gaza means it is not a terrorist organization, it is clearly targeting civilians for political ends, which is the very definition of terrorism," it continues.
"The danger in using euphemisms such as 'militants' to describe terrorists is that it normalizes heinous acts of terrorism and implies that the deliberate targeting of civilians is a military act and that Hamas at large has some other, less despicable objective."
The other side: Some newsrooms are opting to avoid the term, arguing it's used too broadly and the debate around its use has become too heated.

AP's style guide on the Israel-Hamas war, for example, states that because the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" have become politicized, and often are applied inconsistently "detailing what happened is more precise and better serves audiences."
The news service, which licenses its content to many newsrooms globally, said it isn't using those terms for specific actions or groups, "other than in direct quotations or when attributed to authorities or others."
Asked when the AP began to implement its policy around use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism," a spokesperson said it's been the company's general policy since the 1990s, but that the outlet has made some exceptions in the past, including after 9/11.
Of note: The U.S. government and other nations have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. But some newsrooms, particularly those outside of the U.S. or those with global audiences, argue that such a distinction is a point of view that should be acknowledged, but not covered as fact.

BBC News' world affairs editor John Simpson, for example, said in a post last week that terrorism "is a loaded word," and that "it's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn — who are the good guys and who are the bad guys."
"We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business. We also run interviews with guests and quote contributors who describe Hamas as terrorists," he added.
The big picture: Major U.S. media institutions have historically sided with Israel during times of geo-political tension in the Middle East.

But the war with Hamas is forcing newsrooms to reconcile with a new political reality, in which a growing number of Americans say they are sympathetic to Palestine over Israel, according to Gallup.
Go deeper: Inside Biden's talks with Netanyahu, Israel's war team

[Seacoaster(1)]

Pretty clear now that a hospital building wasn't struck. Instead, a parking lot adjacent to the hospital. Relatively small crater, windows and roof tiles blown out, and almost certainly not IDF ordnance.

https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1 ... 5782963207

Haste is the enemy of accuracy.

[MDlaxfan76]

...

In the Capitol today. And, MDlaxfan, look at the signs. Lots of Jews. Also, look at the Capitol arial video shot, in the center. Numerous Jews wearing tallises and kippahs. They're Jewish and badly want people to know. Also, no Orthodox Jews. I'm telling you, it's a strange thing. And it's real. Has been like this for decades. Jews who are anti-Israel, pro-Hamas.

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1 ... 2Wk-g&s=19

I'm headed down there today and will report what I see.

But that looks like a couple hundred people at most. Yes, young people.
Are they pro-Hamas? I don't hear that.

Separately, Tlaib is an idiot IMO, but the claims that these are "insurrectionists" in the comments are truly ridiculous.

[MDlaxfan76]

...

In the Capitol today. And, MDlaxfan, look at the signs. Lots of Jews. Also, look at the Capitol arial video shot, in the center. Numerous Jews wearing tallises and kippahs. They're Jewish and badly want people to know. Also, no Orthodox Jews. I'm telling you, it's a strange thing. And it's real. Has been like this for decades. Jews who are anti-Israel, pro-Hamas.

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1 ... 2Wk-g&s=19

... and not one can be called "anti Semite"

pro Hamas???
I guess I missed that, but sure, a lot of folks, especially young folks blame the right wing government of Israel.

[Farfromgeneva]

Silent or stance, just don’t equivocate or backtrack once pressure comes. Hold the spine strong.

Speak Out on Israel-Hamas War or Stay Quiet? Both Are Risky, Colleges Find

Leaders at Stanford, Williams and elsewhere limit their statements, but neutrality proves a challenge


The reversal comes in contrast to recent years when these academic leaders used their public profiles to condemn, support and otherwise opine on hot-button topics. They have released statements about events including the murder of George Floyd, gun violence in Texas and attacks on mosques in New Zealand.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Sending the wrong message runs the risk of limiting donor contributions and institutional prestige while elevating concerns that institutions are taking sides and chilling free speech at what are supposed to be arenas of intellectual debate.

Yet saying nothing is proving problematic as well, leaving school leaders in a difficult position. After years of weighing in on a range of issues, they are often expected to contribute to the public dialogue. The absence of a message can be perceived as a statement in its own right.

“Universities kind of backed themselves into a corner,” said Tom Ginsburg, a law professor and faculty director of the University of Chicago’s Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression. “Even if they want to move to a policy of neutrality, they are going to have a hard time doing it.”

He added, “If you choose this moment to adopt a policy of neutrality, it looks antisemitic.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

One leader trying to reverse course and keep her opinions to herself is Williams College President Maud S. Mandel.


Maud S. Mandel, president of Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., in 2018. Photo: Stephanie Zollshan/Associated Press
Her newfound silence, she wrote in a letter to the Williams community last week, represents an evolution. “Earlier in my presidency I sent out public statements about various world events,” she wrote. “After conversations with members of our community and colleagues at other schools, I have become convinced that such communications do more harm than good.”

The topic of Israel has been a particular source of tension on campuses with some students and faculty saying criticism of Israel or overt support for Palestinian statehood is antisemitic.

At Harvard, those precarious campus politics flared into view after more than 30 student groups signed a letter laying blame for Hamas’s violence on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians over decades. Harvard leaders, including President Claudine Gay, wrote to the community a few days later that they were “heartbroken by the death and destruction unleashed by the attack by Hamas that targeted citizens in Israel.” They said they hoped the academic community could “modulate rather than amplify the deep-seated divisions and animosities so distressingly evident in the wider world.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Former Harvard President Larry Summers and several high-profile corporate leaders blasted the initial statement and urged Gay to explicitly condemn the students and more forcefully express outrage at Hamas’s actions.


A pro-Palestinian demonstration last week at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters

Harvard President Claudine Gay in a follow-up note called the attack ‘abhorrent.’ Photo: Steven Senne/Associated Press
A day after her first message to the Harvard community, Gay followed up with a note that read in part, “let there be no doubt that I condemn the terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Hamas,” and called the attack “abhorrent.” She said in that message that student groups don’t speak for Harvard, and shared another one, via video, two days later.

Some with ties to the school felt it was too late. The Wexner Foundation, which for more than 30 years has funded a group of Israeli students pursuing master’s degrees in public administration at the Harvard Kennedy School, said this week it would cut ties with the school.

“We are stunned and sickened at the dismal failure of Harvard’s leadership to take a clear and unequivocal stand against the barbaric murders of innocent Israeli civilians,” the group’s leaders wrote to Harvard’s board of overseers Monday. They also said the university’s leaders should have condemned the student groups’ pro-Palestinian joint letter.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Protesters in Tel Aviv shared mixed emotions over Israel’s political climate, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict with Hamas, with the country on the brink of a ground invasion of Gaza. Photo: Ben C. Solomon
In Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania alumni have cut off, or threatened to pull, funding over disappointment with the response by the school’s president. University President Liz Magill issued a follow-up statement vigorously condemning Hamas, but it hasn’t stopped more alumni from pulling support and calling for her removal. The anger follows a Palestinian literary festival the school hosted last month that caused a separate raft of complaints that the school was sympathetic to antisemitism.

Stanford University’s president and provost, who both took those roles this school year, said last week that their general policy would be not to issue statements about news events if they aren’t directly connected to campus. President Richard Saller and Provost Jenny Martinez sent a short message last week expressing sadness over the loss of life in Israel and Gaza. They highlighted the support and security resources available on campus to those affected by the violence.

Students and others criticized the message for not labeling Hamas as terrorists. Two days later, the president and provost sent out another message, this time referencing “the Hamas attack in Israel last weekend, which involved intolerable atrocities including murder of civilians and kidnapping” and detailing their general attitude toward weighing in on political matters. They said the community shouldn’t expect regular commentary in the future.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Frequent statements on news events “can enmesh universities in politics and create a sense of institutional orthodoxy that chills academic freedom” and makes an administration’s occasional silence suggest they hold more or less sympathy for certain groups, they wrote.

Ginsburg said university leaders might fare better in their efforts to step back if, during a quieter period, they appoint a committee to study how and when the university should speak out, develop a set of principles and establish a policy from that.

The University of Chicago has staunchly supported free expression since its founding and crystallized the philosophy in a 1967 document known as the Kalven Report. The report determined that the school should be home to critics of various issues, but “it is not itself the critic.”


The University of Chicago crystallized its philosophy about commenting on global events in a 1967 document known as the Kalven Report. Photo: E. Jason Wambsgans/Chicago Tribune/Getty Images
In an effort to foster informed debate, individual faculty are setting up teach-ins and lectures to help students understand the complex history of the region.

Earlier this week, Ginsburg gave a talk at the University of Chicago on international law as it relates to the conflict, including a discussion of whether Hamas’s actions might be legally classified as rightful resistance or terrorism.

At the University of California Los Angeles, Saree Makdisi, chair of the English department, helped to organize a teach-in about Palestinian history to counter what he said is the narrative driven by well-organized Jewish student groups. The event was interrupted by advocates for Israel and moved online, he said.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Should schools be expected to take a stance on social issues? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

He has little use for the pronouncements of administrators but great concern for a safe place to engage in discussion.

“I want the university’s chancellor to say this is a space for open debate,” Makdisi said. “The dialogue can be as heated in terms of an argument as you want but you can’t be abusive, you can’t fight, you can’t throw people’s laptops in the trash.”

A UCLA spokesman said the school was investigating the disruption at the teach-in. “Anyone found to be in violation of the UCLA code of conduct or the law will be held accountable,” he said in an email. “The safety and well-being of all Bruins remains our top priority.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Across the country in Massachusetts, Brandeis University, a nonsectarian school founded by the Jewish community after World War II, Professor Alexander Kaye said he had a strong emotional reaction when he first learned about the attacks in Israel. He has family in the areas that were attacked.

Shaking off the initial shock, he began to organize a teach-in with other faculty to give historic context to the situation. He moderated a discussion among five speakers whose expertise included democracy in the Middle East, the history of the Turkish empire and Israeli and Egyptian politics.

“We realized pretty quickly that our responsibility as educators was to help people try and make sense of this in the best way that we could,” he said.

Write to Douglas Belkin at [email protected] and Melissa Korn at [email protected]

Israel-Hamas War

Latest news and key analysis on the conflict, selected by the editors

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

[Baducchi]

.bold steps to resolve an intractable impasse universally lauded and accommodated? PS, see my signature block...

bold steps where many americans will die. of these 2,1 million people, many hate the west, hate americans, hate jews. americans will all but certainly die.

[Typical Lax Dad]

.bold steps to resolve an intractable impasse universally lauded and accommodated? PS, see my signature block...

bold steps where many americans will die. of these 2,1 million people, many hate the west, hate americans, hate jews. americans will all but certainly die.

What’s your position on guns, the covid shutdown and the vaccine? Where are you on cops killing unarmed civilians?

[Kismet]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... s-to-come/

Back seat drivers like Rothman (who likely have never reported from a war zone and who usually does Op-eds like this one) don't pass for credible journalism most of the time. No idea how he could possibly know or even understand the details of his competitors methodology/motivations with such certainty. That said,, trashing the competition is always good for business.

In places like this, reporting is often initially inaccurate (especially when you aren't on the ground in Gaza)- you try and corroborate everything you report but mistakes do happen especially on a deadline and you correct them immediately and overtly when contrary evidence presents itself to you. This situation is especially fraught as the people in charge of the government in Gaza are also part of the same terrorist organization. Now the media should know this and not go with just what their official statements are to the media. In online world,, speed often outweighs accuracy - wanna bet HIS organization has done something similar over time?

[Farfromgeneva]

.bold steps to resolve an intractable impasse universally lauded and accommodated? PS, see my signature block...

bold steps where many americans will die. of these 2,1 million people, many hate the west, hate americans, hate jews. americans will all but certainly die.

What’s your position on guns, the covid shutdown and the vaccine? Where are you on cops killing unarmed civilians?

1. shoot em if ya got em
2. they arent chin diapers and it's real, vaccines all have risks and don't trust the process of approval as much given epxedited process but know it was fairly necessary to cut corners at the time.
3. Murder is murder, even if govt sanctioned let alone when indifference to profession and the employees customer base (citizens of all colors). And when it comes to certain police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnlplHQqE3I

Easy peazy (is that how its spelled? never attempted before). We know he's good with iron fisted Albanians given the avatar.