|
Post by John B on Apr 28, 2024 10:44:55 GMT -5
and that Iran is fighting democracy and spreading tyranny, there is no hypocrisy. Then why the hand-wringing over supporting Israel? Netanyahu's government was democratically elected. And yet, those who are "conflicted" over Israel and therefore are supporting (or sympathetic for) Hamas are certainly NOT concerned about the survival of democracy. They appear to be ideologues who extrapolate American concepts of "conservative" and "progressive" , thereby hate Netanyahu, and don't believe Israel has the right to wage a war that was declared against them by a democratically elected Hamas who represents the very Palestinian people for whom those progressive Americans feel their ONLY sympathies. If you're looking for the One Unified Theory that explains who should be supported and who should not, good luck. You'll have to somehow pull humans out of the decision-making process.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 28, 2024 11:24:10 GMT -5
You'll have to somehow pull humans out of the decision-making process. Religion tried that. It gave us the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 28, 2024 12:11:31 GMT -5
I'll confine myself to saying that I don't know anyone who is "pro-Hamas." Hamas is evil.
|
|
|
protests
Apr 28, 2024 14:01:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on Apr 28, 2024 14:01:11 GMT -5
If Israel is equally evil, I'm not on board with that. Our leadership seems to be.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 1, 2024 4:28:59 GMT -5
I guess the reason it is so hard to distinguish the antisemites from the anti-Israel folks is their steadfast unity. They both believe that Israel is an illegitimate State, and that's why they have joined forces to protest and call for a ceasefire. The anti-Israel folks see duly elected Israeli government under Netanyahu as morally equivalent to Hamas. And they believe they have more in common with Hamas than with Israel. If that were not the case, at least SOMEBODY would be calling for the true villain, Hamas -- they ARE the aggressor -- to unconditionally surrender.
If you don't want them to surrender, by definition you want them to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on May 1, 2024 6:57:40 GMT -5
More than 100 arrested at Columbia University yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on May 1, 2024 7:04:35 GMT -5
I see that the police cleared Hamilton Hall at Columbia. I'm surprised that there was so much news coverage about these events. I'm glad the disruptions have apparently come to an end.
It appears that those who occupied Hamilton Hall will be prosecuted, as they should be. Peaceful demonstrations are democracy in action. Vandalizing and occupying buildings are crimes.
|
|
|
Post by james on May 1, 2024 8:28:27 GMT -5
I've mentioned her previously and continue to respect her. Rabbi Sharon Brous' last Shabbat sermon.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 2, 2024 10:19:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by james on May 2, 2024 15:13:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
protests
May 2, 2024 15:53:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Rob Hanesworth on May 2, 2024 15:53:32 GMT -5
I thought loan journalists reported on interest rates. What do they now about the Middle East?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on May 2, 2024 16:07:52 GMT -5
One lone journalist? I put "why doesn't hamas surrender" into both Google and DuckDuckGo searches and got back quite a few hits, most of which seem to be dated after the Charles Lane WaPo op-ed (11/15/23), but I don't think he was the first to bring up the topic*. In fact, I did find a thoroughly pro-Israel piece published a week before Lane's, by a Democratic "pollster and political consultant" (according to Wikipedia): thehill.com/opinion/4299596-mellman-to-protect-gaza-civilians-hamas-should-surrender/And just to make things interesting, I came across a 2018 Brookings Institute analysis piece with this observation: Israelis might be tempted to celebrate Hamas’ weakness—it’s hard, after all, to feel sorry for a group that has an avowed intention of killing you and works with Iran, Israel’s arch-enemy. Yet Hamas’ continued control of Gaza also serves Israel’s interests. Hamas is not the worst of the Palestinian groups opposed to Israel. www.brookings.edu/articles/why-israel-is-stuck-with-hamas/* Also: His piece was picked up by Yahoo News, MSN, and The Week
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 2, 2024 16:14:25 GMT -5
So, you don't think they should surrender either, but you're going to argue the accuracy of my post?
Yeah, that usually works.
|
|
|
Post by james on May 2, 2024 16:17:20 GMT -5
What a ridiculous comment.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on May 2, 2024 16:36:18 GMT -5
The post reads, "The obvious question asked by one lone journalist. It's the most obvious question, but heretofore conspicuously unasked." "Heretofore conspicuously unasked" is an assertion about the public discussions surrounding the Hamas-Israel war, and it is clearly made in a manner that implies neglect or bias on the part of those commenting. Even if "heretofore" is adjusted to the time frame of Lane essay, it's not accurate. Which is not the same as arguing the question of surrender itself. On which I offered no opinion.
In fact, I'd be tickled if Hamas surrendered. Do I think it's at all likely? Nope. Do I think Hamas gives a shit about the fate of ordinary Palestinians, in Gaza or Israel? Nope. Do I think that killing everybody around them is a good way of stopping them? Nope. In fact, I suspect that Hamas did what they did on Oct. 7 precisely to provoke Israel's government into doing what they've done, and that many Hamas fighters and strategists are not only not afraid to die but are quite willing to have uninvolved others die as well. Or as badly.
|
|
|
protests
May 2, 2024 17:20:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on May 2, 2024 17:20:44 GMT -5
Right. They knew going in that our government would turn on Israel. It only took them a month or so. And the question that remains begged is an evidence that the majority of the Palestinians weren't in favor of the attack. Still, our government asks Israel to surrender, not Hamas.
|
|
|
protests
May 2, 2024 17:44:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Marshall on May 2, 2024 17:44:06 GMT -5
I guess to some extent, this is “youth” rebelling against the status quo in the world; the world that accepts the killing of innocents in the name of justifiable retaliation; a world they don’t want to sit by peaceably and accept.
It’s kind of a coming of age for some. In that regard it is similar to the anti-war Viet Nam era.
“We can change the world”
|
|
|
protests
May 2, 2024 17:56:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on May 2, 2024 17:56:17 GMT -5
I guess to some extent, this is “youth” rebelling against the status quo in the world; the world that accepts the killing of innocents in the name of justifiable retaliation; a world they don’t want to sit by peaceably and accept. It’s kind of a coming of age for some. In that regard it is similar to the anti-war Viet Nam era. “We can change the world” Except that it's not retaliation. We're so used to not fighting wars , rather retaliating and hoping that's enough to show "we mean business" that we have forgotten what it is like to have war declared on us. Our current consciousness goes no further back than 9/11. We retaliated and never stopped. Imagine it's 1944 and after a long bloody war Germany is finally on the ropes. Can you imagine an American press -- much less our government -+ calling for a ceasefire and acquiescing to any of Germany's demands,? No. We expected them to surrender.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on May 2, 2024 18:02:34 GMT -5
They knew going in that our government would turn on Israel. It only took them a month or so. And the question that remains begged is an evidence that the majority of the Palestinians weren't in favor of the attack. Still, our government asks Israel to surrender, not Hamas. First, I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence (or analysis) that supports the first bolded phrase. (I've already offered my thumbnail analysis: that Hamas intended to provoke the Israeli government.) Next, I'd like to see some support of the assertion that the US government "turned on" Israel, perhaps including a definition of "turn on." Third, I'm not sure how one would establish the factuality of the other bolded passage--even after establishing that the exact nature of the attack could be presented for approval. Fourth, has the US government actually asked Israel to surrender? The reports I see (AP, Reuters, NBC, ) say that the US is pushing for a cease-fire and release of hostages--for example: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Israel on Wednesday to press for a cease-fire deal in the Israel-Hamas war, saying “the time is now ” and warning that Hamas would bear the blame for any failure to reach an agreement to halt the war in Gaza.
On his seventh visit since the latest war between Israel and Hamas broke out in October, Blinken is trying to advance a truce that would free hostages held by Hamas in exchange for a halt to the fighting and delivery of much needed food, medicine and water into Gaza. Palestinian prisoners are also expected to be released as part of the deal. apnews.com/article/israel-iran-hamas-latest-05-01-2024-a461b0aab9b8d25cddf386f2dfd30d6fNow, is a "halt to the fighting" as a condition of freeing hostages the same as surrender? Is "warning that Hamas would bear the blame for any failure to reach an agreement" an abandonment of Israel? And how would asking Israel to surrender square with supplying them with the arms they need to continue prosecuting the war? (There is a lack of unanimity on material support in Congress and the general public.)
|
|
|
protests
May 2, 2024 18:07:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on May 2, 2024 18:07:33 GMT -5
Now, is a "halt to the fighting" as a condition of freeing hostages the same as surrender? Yes. The state of the situation before Hamas attacked WAS ceasefire. Hamas needs to lose, not live to fight another day.
|
|