Israel-Gaza war

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/joetruzman/status/1738969703731843324

Hamas police officers shoot and disperse Palestinians looking for aid in the Gaza Strip.

This seems to support the point that if you claim to support Palestinian civilians, you should not support Hamas. Because if you do, you are really not supporting Palestinian civilians at all.

[Pres Mike]

Nikki Hayley talks about where Palestinian refugees should go.

Hamas Friendly Countries

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1KUqJQr6Jw/

We have this giant Islamic Elephant in the room. Israel occupy about 3% of the Middle East. Every other country surrounding them are Muslim, yet they won't take any of their brothers and sisters at their greatest hour of need, not even sick babies.

Who is helping their Muslim brothers?

I wonder why Jordan and Egypt wont take any Palestinian refugees?

Because it would be the Nakba 2.0

If Egypt allowed the Palestinians to flee Gaza, Israel will never allow them to return. They will keep their land and homes. The Israeli intelligence agency made this very plan after Oct 7. It was a real possibility.

Make no mistake. If Jordan and Egypt allowed it, more than half of the Israeli political spectrum would expel the 6 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip overnight. That includes the current government led by Netanyahu.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The unfortunate reality is that the Israeli settlers are unhinged enough of an interest group at this point that even if Hamas didn't exist there would be no respite. Israel's military engages in hostage taking and various things extremely similar in character to the things it attacks its opponents for and if Hamas wasn't there, the short-term situation for Palestinians would be worse.

If the settler militias exist, the IDF (in the form it is now in, with all the oh-so-laudable institutional practices) exists, and the pogrom reality in the West Bank exists, then Hamas isn't the principal problem. It's representative of problems that make a solution difficult, but the side actually likelier to achieve FTRTTS (which would be the greatest evil here, moreso than October 7th or the current Israeli shelling of Gaza even under the most uncharitable interpretations) isn't Hamas and its allies. In this perverse status quo, Hamas having fighting ability checks the FTRTTS dreams of Ben Gvir and Smotrich, net improving the situation for the Palestinians despite the undeniable atrocities that they've committed.

The onus lies on Israel to manage its own house and protect the rights of the Arabs to whom it has as subjects, all of them, and their neglect of this duty has led to this mess never going away. We should be asking, why are settler pogroms still running amok in the West Bank? Won't anyone control them?

Israel wants and has a mini Empire, but it doesn't want to pay the price needed to maintain it in an orderly state. It is a human entity with human virtues and human flaws. And just like many similarly human states in the Fertile Crescent throughout history (or other regions for that matter), it has responsibility to handle its own messes. For the sake of the people who would suffer if things go hot, on both sides of the Jew-Gentile divide, it would be much preferable if it appreciated what this actually meant.

[super6646]

Nakba wouldn't have happened "in a perfect world".

In a perfect world, the Romans wouldn’t have kicked the Jews out of Judea.

In reality, we don’t live in a perfect world. Wars of conquest, land loss and ethnic cleaning are extremely common in history. That doesn’t excuse what happened to thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, but it should put it in perspective. Palestinians have every right to be upset over what happened, but you just can’t respond to it by living as permanent refugees, electing terrorists as your government, and teaching your children to be suicide bombers. What’s happening in Gaza is not happening because of the Nakba, it’s happening because Palestinians have chosen to respond to the Nakba by starting a suicidal war with a neighbor much stronger than them. What happened to Palestinians in 1948 was by no means unique, and throughout history many people have responded to such tragedies by accepting reality and building a better life for their children and grandchildren. And if Palestinians did this, they would have a much higher quality of life, much more international support, and a much better chance and getting  at least some of their land back.

So much this. See the Greeks/Turks in the early 1920s and Germans post-1945. I don’t see a demand for the Greeks to have a right of return to western Anatolia (where they lived since antiquity) or Germans in Pomerania/East Prussia. Both were also, like the Arab coalition in 1948, the aggressors in their respective conflicts too. Don’t see why special exemption should exist here.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Nakba wouldn't have happened "in a perfect world".

In a perfect world, the Romans wouldn’t have kicked the Jews out of Judea.

In reality, we don’t live in a perfect world. Wars of conquest, land loss and ethnic cleaning are extremely common in history. That doesn’t excuse what happened to thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, but it should put it in perspective. Palestinians have every right to be upset over what happened, but you just can’t respond to it by living as permanent refugees, electing terrorists as your government, and teaching your children to be suicide bombers. What’s happening in Gaza is not happening because of the Nakba, it’s happening because Palestinians have chosen to respond to the Nakba by starting a suicidal war with a neighbor much stronger than them. What happened to Palestinians in 1948 was by no means unique, and throughout history many people have responded to such tragedies by accepting reality and building a better life for their children and grandchildren. And if Palestinians did this, they would have a much higher quality of life, much more international support, and a much better chance and getting  at least some of their land back.

So much this. See the Greeks/Turks in the early 1920s and Germans post-1945. I don’t see a demand for the Greeks to have a right of return to western Anatolia (where they lived since antiquity) or Germans in Pomerania/East Prussia. Both were also, like the Arab coalition in 1948, the aggressors in their respective conflicts too. Don’t see why special exemption should exist here.

Thanks to the EU’s freedom of movement, ethnic Germans can return to Pomerania, Bohemia etc. But most don’t want to. The solution for Palestinian refugees is obvious- they should be given the right to return to a Palestinian state. And maybe, if relations with Israel improve sometime down the line, Israel and Palestine can have an EU-style relationship and Palestinians can live in Jaffa and Jews can live in Hebron. But getting to that point means not demanding millions of refugees and their descendants move to Israel as a part of a negotiated solution. Like I said before, accepting reality as it is could allow Palestinians to get a lot of what they want.

[pppolitics]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

[pppolitics]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And do what?

Apparently in pppolitics' world, even if Iran could manage to inflict conventional military defeat against Israel in an offensive war, for some reason Iran would have no need to be at all concerned about Israeli nukes.

Maybe pppolitics knows something we don't about that, but I doubt it.

Let's stop pretending that Iran doesn't have nukes.

[Birdish]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And do what?

Apparently in pppolitics' world, even if Iran could manage to inflict conventional military defeat against Israel in an offensive war, for some reason Iran would have no need to be at all concerned about Israeli nukes.

Maybe pppolitics knows something we don't about that, but I doubt it.

Let's stop pretending that Iran doesn't have nukes.

Israel has nukes.

[Vosem]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

I mean, yeah, fundamentally it is unlikely that Israel could beat an Iranian army in the field...but Israel is also a nuclear-armed state, and Iran is not. If Israel's survival came down to beating an Iranian army in the field, then there would just no longer be an Iran. (If 'Samson Option' stuff is true, and Israeli nuclear policy follows US/Soviet Cold War examples, then probably many other countries would also be hit at the same time and also essentially cease to exist, as punishment for failing to stop the war. Both the US and Soviet Union planned to hit neutral countries -- famously Finland would've been annihilated twice over if there were a nuclear war between the 1950s and 1980s).

This is all academic, because if there's one thing this war has taught us it is that the Palestinians keep alienating their allies. Iran didn't intervene in this war, and won't in the next one. (Also not entirely clear where such a conflict would take place).

(Also, "without US help Iran would go through the front door"...literally where and how? They don't border each other and Iranian interventions in Iraq/Syria/everywhere have met with large-scale local resistance.)

[Vosem]

Let's stop beating around the bushes and say the obvious:

Hamas has won!

Hamas knows that it can't beat Israel militarily, so it baited Israel into committing genocide for the entire world to see.

Israel is now more isolated than ever and every terrorist killed will be replaced with 10 new ones.

Hamas is a victim of their own success. They underestimated the damage they would do on October 7th and had no plan on what would happen afterwards. Now Sinwar is hiding in a tunnel under a refugee camp desperately trying not to get caught. Pretending this is some brilliant tactical coup by the Hamas leadership is such a big brain take that I'm not even sure how to respond.

Hamas isn't primarily fighting for military supremacy. It's fighting for the support of the Arab street. And in that it has been largely successful.

Has it actually? This feels like the most tepid response from the Arab street essentially ever. There are no protests anywhere calling for intervention, which I remember were a thing in the 2006 war, and you have countries semi-openly taking Israel's side (like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain shooting down missiles), not denying that they are taking Israel's side behind the scenes (as with Egypt or Jordan), or particular sides in civil wars just openly taking Israel's side (as with the anti-Houthi STC in Yemen just celebrating Israeli victories).

The odd thing about this war compared to every other war Israel has ever fought is that the response from, like, every part of the world is more favorable than it has ever been. (Might say more about how intensely unfavorable global opinion used to be, but, well, it never made a dent in the actual situation).

[Vosem]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And do what?

Apparently in pppolitics' world, even if Iran could manage to inflict conventional military defeat against Israel in an offensive war, for some reason Iran would have no need to be at all concerned about Israeli nukes.

Maybe pppolitics knows something we don't about that, but I doubt it.

Let's stop pretending that Iran doesn't have nukes.

Literally nobody -- not Iran or its allies or its enemies -- claims Iran has nukes, even though such a claim would be cheap to make. It's a laughable claim.

Also, like, the whole logic of MAD is that having nukes is a poor defense against your enemy having nukes. This wouldn't stop Iran from getting destroyed in a war against Israel.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Let's stop beating around the bushes and say the obvious:

Hamas has won!

Hamas knows that it can't beat Israel militarily, so it baited Israel into committing genocide for the entire world to see.

Israel is now more isolated than ever and every terrorist killed will be replaced with 10 new ones.

Hamas is a victim of their own success. They underestimated the damage they would do on October 7th and had no plan on what would happen afterwards. Now Sinwar is hiding in a tunnel under a refugee camp desperately trying not to get caught. Pretending this is some brilliant tactical coup by the Hamas leadership is such a big brain take that I'm not even sure how to respond.

Hamas isn't primarily fighting for military supremacy. It's fighting for the support of the Arab street. And in that it has been largely successful.

Has it actually? This feels like the most tepid response from the Arab street essentially ever. There are no protests anywhere calling for intervention, which I remember were a thing in the 2006 war, and you have countries semi-openly taking Israel's side (like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain shooting down missiles), not denying that they are taking Israel's side behind the scenes (as with Egypt or Jordan), or particular sides in civil wars just openly taking Israel's side (as with the anti-Houthi STC in Yemen just celebrating Israeli victories).

The odd thing about this war compared to every other war Israel has ever fought is that the response from, like, every part of the world is more favorable than it has ever been. (Might say more about how intensely unfavorable global opinion used to be, but, well, it never made a dent in the actual situation).

In terms of who is the most visible anti Israel actor (a more valuable niche than ever, one with considerable prestige) Hamas has entrenched itself and claimed additional relevance atop that. Anything else is probably secondary to Hamas (well, except maybe the patronage of Iran, which has additional proxies such as PIJ). Opposition to Israel is like water in a storm, it's inevitably going to manifest into something. Hamas itself is just the most recent actor to fill that niche. The public is protesting Western multinationals such as Starbucks instead of directly calling for their countries to join, perhaps something that has gotten more highlighting since the settlements in the West Bank are funded in significant part due to Western money. The general feeling is that boycotts are a tactic that can be relied on to work.

Israel's situation isn't actually that bad short-term on a PR front, despite their manifest incompetence/complacency on this (like seriously, what purpose does yellow stars in the UN serve? What friends do you make by demanding the UN Sec Gen resign?). A lot of people have made fun of the calendar thing and that's the more long-term cost coming into play... If people don't trust you, then they won't listen to what you have to say. Hamas is a far more professional outfit than in the past. It's possible that for Israel, while things are among the best they've been diplomatically in regards to concrete action (the anger is expressed more through words than anything else, at least in the First and Second Worlds), other facets are more against them. It's ironic, maybe. It is what it is.

It will be hard for either side to claim clear-cut victory here. And both sides are inclined to overweight their victories.

[dead0man]

Hamas isn't primarily fighting for military supremacy. It's fighting for the support of the Arab street. And in that it has been largely successful.

the biggest problem for the entire region* is that they already had the support of the Arab street



*or rather, "the reason the entire region is screwed for generations"

[pppolitics]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And do what?

Apparently in pppolitics' world, even if Iran could manage to inflict conventional military defeat against Israel in an offensive war, for some reason Iran would have no need to be at all concerned about Israeli nukes.

Maybe pppolitics knows something we don't about that, but I doubt it.

Let's stop pretending that Iran doesn't have nukes.

Israel has nukes.

So it does.

Nowhere did I implied otherwise.

[pppolitics]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

I mean, yeah, fundamentally it is unlikely that Israel could beat an Iranian army in the field...but Israel is also a nuclear-armed state, and Iran is not. If Israel's survival came down to beating an Iranian army in the field, then there would just no longer be an Iran. (If 'Samson Option' stuff is true, and Israeli nuclear policy follows US/Soviet Cold War examples, then probably many other countries would also be hit at the same time and also essentially cease to exist, as punishment for failing to stop the war. Both the US and Soviet Union planned to hit neutral countries -- famously Finland would've been annihilated twice over if there were a nuclear war between the 1950s and 1980s).

This is all academic, because if there's one thing this war has taught us it is that the Palestinians keep alienating their allies. Iran didn't intervene in this war, and won't in the next one. (Also not entirely clear where such a conflict would take place).

(Also, "without US help Iran would go through the front door"...literally where and how? They don't border each other and Iranian interventions in Iraq/Syria/everywhere have met with large-scale local resistance.)

Unfortunately for Israel, Trump threw out the Iran nuclear deal.

[Pres Mike]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

I mean, yeah, fundamentally it is unlikely that Israel could beat an Iranian army in the field...but Israel is also a nuclear-armed state, and Iran is not. If Israel's survival came down to beating an Iranian army in the field, then there would just no longer be an Iran. (If 'Samson Option' stuff is true, and Israeli nuclear policy follows US/Soviet Cold War examples, then probably many other countries would also be hit at the same time and also essentially cease to exist, as punishment for failing to stop the war. Both the US and Soviet Union planned to hit neutral countries -- famously Finland would've been annihilated twice over if there were a nuclear war between the 1950s and 1980s).

This is all academic, because if there's one thing this war has taught us it is that the Palestinians keep alienating their allies. Iran didn't intervene in this war, and won't in the next one. (Also not entirely clear where such a conflict would take place).

(Also, "without US help Iran would go through the front door"...literally where and how? They don't border each other and Iranian interventions in Iraq/Syria/everywhere have met with large-scale local resistance.)

There were no US plans to nuke Finland during the Cold War. I googled several sources and none suggest that, although Finland was going to be uninhabitable from fallout coming from Leningrad. In fact Finland had security guarantees from both the US and Soviet Union

[pppolitics]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And do what?

Apparently in pppolitics' world, even if Iran could manage to inflict conventional military defeat against Israel in an offensive war, for some reason Iran would have no need to be at all concerned about Israeli nukes.

Maybe pppolitics knows something we don't about that, but I doubt it.

Let's stop pretending that Iran doesn't have nukes.

Literally nobody -- not Iran or its allies or its enemies -- claims Iran has nukes, even though such a claim would be cheap to make. It's a laughable claim.

Also, like, the whole logic of MAD is that having nukes is a poor defense against your enemy having nukes. This wouldn't stop Iran from getting destroyed in a war against Israel.

I don't think you understand. Nuclear weapons are not hard to make.

The reason that not every random country has nuclear weapons is not that those countries don't have smart enough scientists, but because there is a lot of political pressure not to have them (NPT, sanctions, etc.).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

I mean, yeah, fundamentally it is unlikely that Israel could beat an Iranian army in the field...but Israel is also a nuclear-armed state, and Iran is not. If Israel's survival came down to beating an Iranian army in the field, then there would just no longer be an Iran. (If 'Samson Option' stuff is true, and Israeli nuclear policy follows US/Soviet Cold War examples, then probably many other countries would also be hit at the same time and also essentially cease to exist, as punishment for failing to stop the war. Both the US and Soviet Union planned to hit neutral countries -- famously Finland would've been annihilated twice over if there were a nuclear war between the 1950s and 1980s).

This is all academic, because if there's one thing this war has taught us it is that the Palestinians keep alienating their allies. Iran didn't intervene in this war, and won't in the next one. (Also not entirely clear where such a conflict would take place).

(Also, "without US help Iran would go through the front door"...literally where and how? They don't border each other and Iranian interventions in Iraq/Syria/everywhere have met with large-scale local resistance.)

Unfortunately for Israel, Trump threw out the Iran nuclear deal.

A blunder that was.

[Vosem]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

I mean, yeah, fundamentally it is unlikely that Israel could beat an Iranian army in the field...but Israel is also a nuclear-armed state, and Iran is not. If Israel's survival came down to beating an Iranian army in the field, then there would just no longer be an Iran. (If 'Samson Option' stuff is true, and Israeli nuclear policy follows US/Soviet Cold War examples, then probably many other countries would also be hit at the same time and also essentially cease to exist, as punishment for failing to stop the war. Both the US and Soviet Union planned to hit neutral countries -- famously Finland would've been annihilated twice over if there were a nuclear war between the 1950s and 1980s).

This is all academic, because if there's one thing this war has taught us it is that the Palestinians keep alienating their allies. Iran didn't intervene in this war, and won't in the next one. (Also not entirely clear where such a conflict would take place).

(Also, "without US help Iran would go through the front door"...literally where and how? They don't border each other and Iranian interventions in Iraq/Syria/everywhere have met with large-scale local resistance.)

There were no US plans to nuke Finland during the Cold War. I googled several sources and none suggest that, although Finland was going to be uninhabitable from fallout coming from Leningrad. In fact Finland had security guarantees from both the US and Soviet Union

There were absolutely US plans to nuke Finland in the Cold War.

Nuclear targets and targeting principles were closely guarded secrets. U.S. target maps of Finland from the late 1950s show specific target symbols on facilities such as airfields, ports, and bridges. All possible targets comprised the National Strategic Target List (NSTL), while the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP, from 1960 onwards) was a blueprint that specified the value of these targets, the conditions under which they were to be attacked, and the order and priority of targets to be engaged. The Bombing Encyclopedia produced by the United States Air Force and intelligence services was an attempt to list all potential targets anywhere in the world; this document was first created in 1946, and over the years it assumed increasingly massive dimensions, including bombing targets in both “hostile nations” and in neutral countries, such as Finland.

In the bombing charts in 1950's targets were marked with different symbols – in the capital Helsinki and many other places in Finland – such as airfields, harbors, bridges, road junctions, factories, military bases, radio stations and fuel depots30. Even Siikakangas, an abandoned, grassy airfield in central Finland was among the targets. Why? Obviously because the government was just at the time considering moving the main base of the Finnish air force there – far from borders and population centres.31

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And do what?

Apparently in pppolitics' world, even if Iran could manage to inflict conventional military defeat against Israel in an offensive war, for some reason Iran would have no need to be at all concerned about Israeli nukes.

Maybe pppolitics knows something we don't about that, but I doubt it.

Let's stop pretending that Iran doesn't have nukes.

Literally nobody -- not Iran or its allies or its enemies -- claims Iran has nukes, even though such a claim would be cheap to make. It's a laughable claim.

Also, like, the whole logic of MAD is that having nukes is a poor defense against your enemy having nukes. This wouldn't stop Iran from getting destroyed in a war against Israel.

I don't think you understand. Nuclear weapons are not hard to make.

The reason that not every random country has nuclear weapons is not that those countries don't have smart enough scientists, but because there is a lot of political pressure not to have them (NPT, sanctions, etc.).

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

The reality is that nuclear weapons are not impossibly hard to make, even for quite poor countries like North Korea, but they are sufficiently difficult that even developed countries (like 1960s-1970s-era Sweden) have struggled with the task in the past. Iran probably would have them by now if not for active measures on the part of the US and Israel (including economic sanctions, and things like assassinating scientists), but they have clearly been trying for a long time and not succeeded. (Israel, for the record, would probably have never developed them if not for the active cooperation of nuclear-armed 1960s-era France, on top of spying within the United States.)

Let's stop beating around the bushes and say the obvious:

Hamas has won!

Hamas knows that it can't beat Israel militarily, so it baited Israel into committing genocide for the entire world to see.

Israel is now more isolated than ever and every terrorist killed will be replaced with 10 new ones.

Hamas is a victim of their own success. They underestimated the damage they would do on October 7th and had no plan on what would happen afterwards. Now Sinwar is hiding in a tunnel under a refugee camp desperately trying not to get caught. Pretending this is some brilliant tactical coup by the Hamas leadership is such a big brain take that I'm not even sure how to respond.

Hamas isn't primarily fighting for military supremacy. It's fighting for the support of the Arab street. And in that it has been largely successful.

Has it actually? This feels like the most tepid response from the Arab street essentially ever. There are no protests anywhere calling for intervention, which I remember were a thing in the 2006 war, and you have countries semi-openly taking Israel's side (like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain shooting down missiles), not denying that they are taking Israel's side behind the scenes (as with Egypt or Jordan), or particular sides in civil wars just openly taking Israel's side (as with the anti-Houthi STC in Yemen just celebrating Israeli victories).

The odd thing about this war compared to every other war Israel has ever fought is that the response from, like, every part of the world is more favorable than it has ever been. (Might say more about how intensely unfavorable global opinion used to be, but, well, it never made a dent in the actual situation).

In terms of who is the most visible anti Israel actor (a more valuable niche than ever, one with considerable prestige) Hamas has entrenched itself and claimed additional relevance atop that. Anything else is probably secondary to Hamas (well, except maybe the patronage of Iran, which has additional proxies such as PIJ). Opposition to Israel is like water in a storm, it's inevitably going to manifest into something. Hamas itself is just the most recent actor to fill that niche. The public is protesting Western multinationals such as Starbucks instead of directly calling for their countries to join, perhaps something that has gotten more highlighting since the settlements in the West Bank are funded in significant part due to Western money. The general feeling is that boycotts are a tactic that can be relied on to work.

Israel's situation isn't actually that bad short-term on a PR front, despite their manifest incompetence/complacency on this (like seriously, what purpose does yellow stars in the UN serve? What friends do you make by demanding the UN Sec Gen resign?). A lot of people have made fun of the calendar thing and that's the more long-term cost coming into play... If people don't trust you, then they won't listen to what you have to say. Hamas is a far more professional outfit than in the past. It's possible that for Israel, while things are among the best they've been diplomatically in regards to concrete action (the anger is expressed more through words than anything else, at least in the First and Second Worlds), other facets are more against them. It's ironic, maybe. It is what it is.

It will be hard for either side to claim clear-cut victory here. And both sides are inclined to overweight their victories.

I just don't think this is "a more valuable niche than ever" if you have Arab governments and militias turning against the Palestinians, on top of the governments of the US and the European Union and India, and this is cleanly demonstrated by elections in distant lands during this war returning pro-Israel leadership teams in countries which have little reason to care. Iran and Hezbollah not intervening just underscores the point that Israel's friends care about the outcome and the Palestinians' friends don't (...though I remain unconvinced that Hezbollah intervening was actually ever a particularly serious possibility; if Sinwar thought so then he had drunk his own Kool-Aid).

[pppolitics]

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

This question is so stupid that I am not even going to dignify it with an answer.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

This question is so stupid that I am not even going to dignify it with an answer.

Dude, just be honest and admit that you want Hamas to murder all the (((Jews))).  No one who has even half a brain cell believes you’re not a rabid anti-Semite.  Then again, I suppose you did basically admit as much with your bizarre fantasizing about an imaginary Hamas victory.

[pppolitics]

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

This question is so stupid that I am not even going to dignify it with an answer.

Dude, just be honest and admit that you want Hamas to murder all the (((Jews))).  No one who has even half a brain cell believes you’re not a rabid anti-Semite.  Then again, I suppose you did basically admit as much with your bizarre fantasizing about an imaginary Hamas victory.

Those are your words, not mine.

What I want is for the US to cut off aid to Israel.

What happens after that is no longer the US's problem.

Israel and Iran can blow each other up for all I care.

[Vosem]

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

This question is so stupid that I am not even going to dignify it with an answer.

Dude, just be honest and admit that you want Hamas to murder all the (((Jews))).  No one who has even half a brain cell believes you’re not a rabid anti-Semite.  Then again, I suppose you did basically admit as much with your bizarre fantasizing about an imaginary Hamas victory.

Those are your words, not mine.

What I want is for the US to cut off aid to Israel.

What happens after that is no longer the US's problem.

Israel and Iran can blow each other up for all I care.

I would incidentally be fine with this if it also meant the end of Western aid being sent to Gaza.

[pppolitics]

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

This question is so stupid that I am not even going to dignify it with an answer.

Dude, just be honest and admit that you want Hamas to murder all the (((Jews))).  No one who has even half a brain cell believes you’re not a rabid anti-Semite.  Then again, I suppose you did basically admit as much with your bizarre fantasizing about an imaginary Hamas victory.

Those are your words, not mine.

What I want is for the US to cut off aid to Israel.

What happens after that is no longer the US's problem.

Israel and Iran can blow each other up for all I care.

I would incidentally be fine with this if it also meant the end of Western aid being sent to Gaza.

Sounds good to me

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

This question is so stupid that I am not even going to dignify it with an answer.

Dude, just be honest and admit that you want Hamas to murder all the (((Jews))).  No one who has even half a brain cell believes you’re not a rabid anti-Semite.  Then again, I suppose you did basically admit as much with your bizarre fantasizing about an imaginary Hamas victory.

Those are your words, not mine.

What I want is for the US to cut off aid to Israel.

What happens after that is no longer the US's problem.

Israel and Iran can blow each other up for all I care.

Press X to doubt