[cardcrimson]

“We can’t lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians had nothing to do with Hamas.”

Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

I'm not saying that Israel should pound them out of existence, I think some restraint at the moment would be quite beneficial. To say, though, that the Palestinians had nothing to do with Hamas is naive--plenty of examples out there where the citizens voted the wrong people in to power, only to suffer for that collective decision.

[cardcrimson]

“We can’t lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians had nothing to do with Hamas.”

Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

I'm not saying that Israel should pound them out of existence, I think some restraint at the moment would be quite beneficial. To say, though, that the Palestinians had nothing to do with Hamas is naive--plenty of examples out there where the citizens voted the wrong people in to power, only to suffer for that collective decision.

[dabigv13]

Pretty abhorrent reasoning.

Firstly, that election was 17 years ago. Hamas has not allowed more. Does that seem like a reasonable democratic process representing the will of present day Palestinians, many of whom weren't even born?

Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime, and rightfully so. Even if Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006, many did not. And the ones that did vote for them, did not themselves order soldiers to commit atrocities.

Of course there is plenty to be said as well about Netanyahu's support to Hamas, though I must admit I am not too well versed in the details. Does he deserve to be bombed for this too?

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/17...86619?s=20
[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Pretty abhorrent reasoning.

Firstly, that election was 17 years ago. Hamas has not allowed more. Does that seem like a reasonable democratic process representing the will of present day Palestinians, many of whom weren't even born?

Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime, and rightfully so. Even if Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006, many did not. And the ones that did vote for them, did not themselves order soldiers to commit atrocities.

Of course there is plenty to be said as well about Netanyahu's support to Hamas, though I must admit I am not too well versed in the details. Does he deserve to be bombed for this too?

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/17...86619?s=20
[/tweet]

[cardcrimson]

Pretty abhorrent reasoning.

Firstly, that election was 17 years ago. Hamas has not allowed more. Does that seem like a reasonable democratic process representing the will of present day Palestinians, many of whom weren't even born?

Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime, and rightfully so. Even if Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006, many did not. And the ones that did vote for them, did not themselves order soldiers to commit atrocities.

Of course there is plenty to be said as well about Netanyahu's support to Hamas, though I must admit I am not too well versed in the details. Does he deserve to be bombed for this too?

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/17...86619?s=20
[/tweet]

Abhorrent reasoning? Nothing meant to be dark and sinister. I said they shouldn't be bombed into oblivion and that restraint in order--you wondered if I thought Netanyahu should be bombed too? I'm not following that.

The Palestinians, in an allegedly free and fair election, voted Hamas into power. In my opinion, they had something to do with the situation they're in now. My comment was in reference to Biden's saying the majority of the Palestinians in Gaza had nothing to do with Hamas. I disagree with that statement. Nothing more.

The Palestinians have certainly suffered under Hamas, with no voice for 17 years (clearly. Israel, arguably, hasn't helped the matter, either). History is replete with examples of the populace suffering under those they elected. The Venezuelans suffered under the Fifth Republic Movement they elected. The Germans suffered under the National Socialists whom they elected. And Russians suffer today under Putin. And on and on.

[cardcrimson]

Pretty abhorrent reasoning.

Firstly, that election was 17 years ago. Hamas has not allowed more. Does that seem like a reasonable democratic process representing the will of present day Palestinians, many of whom weren't even born?

Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime, and rightfully so. Even if Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006, many did not. And the ones that did vote for them, did not themselves order soldiers to commit atrocities.

Of course there is plenty to be said as well about Netanyahu's support to Hamas, though I must admit I am not too well versed in the details. Does he deserve to be bombed for this too?

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/17...86619?s=20
[/tweet]

Abhorrent reasoning? Nothing meant to be dark and sinister. I said they shouldn't be bombed into oblivion and that restraint in order--you wondered if I thought Netanyahu should be bombed too? I'm not following that.

The Palestinians, in an allegedly free and fair election, voted Hamas into power. In my opinion, they had something to do with the situation they're in now. My comment was in reference to Biden's saying the majority of the Palestinians in Gaza had nothing to do with Hamas. I disagree with that statement. Nothing more.

The Palestinians have certainly suffered under Hamas, with no voice for 17 years (clearly. Israel, arguably, hasn't helped the matter, either). History is replete with examples of the populace suffering under those they elected. The Venezuelans suffered under the Fifth Republic Movement they elected. The Germans suffered under the National Socialists whom they elected. And Russians suffer today under Putin. And on and on.

[TrumpCard]

Very important development if it happens. Egypt has thus far kept their borders closed, and as all the land borders with Israel are closed, Palestinians really have nowhere safe to go to avoid Israeli bombs. The IDF has not been really subtle in their public messaging that they are expecting and tolerating lots of civilian casualties.

The one, possibly two, carrier groups going to the Eastern Med are clearly meant to try and dissuade other regional actors from getting involved.

I agree it's important that Palestinians have a safe corridor to exit.  
I agree with your assessment that safe passage for civilians benefits all parties.  
I agree that Israel's public messaging has disclosed a lack of intention to surgically tailor military action to avoid civilian casualties.  

An additional fact that seems important is the death toll on the Palestinian side.  
As of now, there are 1,900 reported deaths in Gaza, including Hamas members.
Unless that number is well below reality due to a delay in counting casualties, that number seems remarkably low for the number of air strikes.
To me that suggests that, to date, Israel has been more careful about civilian casualties than its leaders are professing.   

I have a few interpretations of the events that may differ from yours:
(1) I think Israel would like to avoid civilian casualties to the extent that is possible, consistent with its legitimate military objectives.
(2) I don't think Israel has any desire or intention to engage in ethnic cleansing.  
(3) Prudent or not, I think Israel may be trying to scare civilians into leaving so that fewer civilians die.  
(4) I think Israel is relieved that other countries, especially Egypt, are helping to provide a civilian corridor.
(5) I think Israel was disappointed, but not surprised, that Hamas urged Palestinian citizens not to flee so that they could be human shields, which is a violation of the laws of war.
(6) Based on these points, U.S. messaging that Israel should delay its ground invasion to allow civilians to flee may not be upsetting to Israel.

[TrumpCard]

Very important development if it happens. Egypt has thus far kept their borders closed, and as all the land borders with Israel are closed, Palestinians really have nowhere safe to go to avoid Israeli bombs. The IDF has not been really subtle in their public messaging that they are expecting and tolerating lots of civilian casualties.

The one, possibly two, carrier groups going to the Eastern Med are clearly meant to try and dissuade other regional actors from getting involved.

I agree it's important that Palestinians have a safe corridor to exit.  
I agree with your assessment that safe passage for civilians benefits all parties.  
I agree that Israel's public messaging has disclosed a lack of intention to surgically tailor military action to avoid civilian casualties.  

An additional fact that seems important is the death toll on the Palestinian side.  
As of now, there are 1,900 reported deaths in Gaza, including Hamas members.
Unless that number is well below reality due to a delay in counting casualties, that number seems remarkably low for the number of air strikes.
To me that suggests that, to date, Israel has been more careful about civilian casualties than its leaders are professing.   

I have a few interpretations of the events that may differ from yours:
(1) I think Israel would like to avoid civilian casualties to the extent that is possible, consistent with its legitimate military objectives.
(2) I don't think Israel has any desire or intention to engage in ethnic cleansing.  
(3) Prudent or not, I think Israel may be trying to scare civilians into leaving so that fewer civilians die.  
(4) I think Israel is relieved that other countries, especially Egypt, are helping to provide a civilian corridor.
(5) I think Israel was disappointed, but not surprised, that Hamas urged Palestinian citizens not to flee so that they could be human shields, which is a violation of the laws of war.
(6) Based on these points, U.S. messaging that Israel should delay its ground invasion to allow civilians to flee may not be upsetting to Israel.

[dabigv13]

I wouldn't consider 2000 dead in a couple days a low number. Obviously it's going to continue rising.

And as of now Egypt's borders remain closed. There is no place for anyone in Gaza to flee at the moment.

[dabigv13]

I wouldn't consider 2000 dead in a couple days a low number. Obviously it's going to continue rising.

And as of now Egypt's borders remain closed. There is no place for anyone in Gaza to flee at the moment.

[Goose]

I wouldn't consider 2000 dead in a couple days a low number. Obviously it's going to continue rising.

And as of now Egypt's borders remain closed. There is no place for anyone in Gaza to flee at the moment.

There are 9 million refugees from other nearby countries already living in Egypt. Obviously, Egypt is not a particularly wealthy nation. There is really no place immediately available in Egypt that can take another million people, particularly in Sinai. Egypt also fears that most of those refugees will not voluntarily return to their homes in Gaza even when this war is over. That has been Egypt's experience with it's other refugees. Obviously Egypt also doesn't want to have a Hamas insurgency transferred to Egypt. I think that even if the US offered to foot the bill for the refugees, Egypt would be unwilling to risk further unwanted immigration. This is an unfortunate (to say the least) situation, but I fear that is where we are.

[Goose]

I wouldn't consider 2000 dead in a couple days a low number. Obviously it's going to continue rising.

And as of now Egypt's borders remain closed. There is no place for anyone in Gaza to flee at the moment.

There are 9 million refugees from other nearby countries already living in Egypt. Obviously, Egypt is not a particularly wealthy nation. There is really no place immediately available in Egypt that can take another million people, particularly in Sinai. Egypt also fears that most of those refugees will not voluntarily return to their homes in Gaza even when this war is over. That has been Egypt's experience with it's other refugees. Obviously Egypt also doesn't want to have a Hamas insurgency transferred to Egypt. I think that even if the US offered to foot the bill for the refugees, Egypt would be unwilling to risk further unwanted immigration. This is an unfortunate (to say the least) situation, but I fear that is where we are.

[TrumpCard]

I wouldn't consider 2000 dead in a couple days a low number. Obviously it's going to continue rising.

And as of now Egypt's borders remain closed. There is no place for anyone in Gaza to flee at the moment.

Israel reports ~6,000 air strikes in the last week.  The population density of Gaza is similar to that of the city of San Francisco.  I'm not trivializing the death of 2,000 people, some of whom undoubtedly were civilians.  I'm just noting that 2,000 deaths -- with some of the dead being legitimate targets who committed terrorist acts -- is much lower than one might expect from 6,000 air strikes in a densely populated area if the attacker were trying to inflict death.

[TrumpCard]

I wouldn't consider 2000 dead in a couple days a low number. Obviously it's going to continue rising.

And as of now Egypt's borders remain closed. There is no place for anyone in Gaza to flee at the moment.

Israel reports ~6,000 air strikes in the last week.  The population density of Gaza is similar to that of the city of San Francisco.  I'm not trivializing the death of 2,000 people, some of whom undoubtedly were civilians.  I'm just noting that 2,000 deaths -- with some of the dead being legitimate targets who committed terrorist acts -- is much lower than one might expect from 6,000 air strikes in a densely populated area if the attacker were trying to inflict death.

[81alum]

Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

Hamas took 44% of the vote in 2006, which was a plurality.  The majority of Palestinians preferred someone else, but under the complex system by which seats were awarded, Hamas took 74 of the 135 seats.  Of course, Hamas made sure there was never another election.

Some political scientists warned that Hamas, due to a reign of violence toward opposition candidates the first time around, had an unfair advantage going into that election, but George W. Bush (advised by Condi Rice) refused to intervene to stop the elections.  Few people expected Hamas to win.

The Hamas election of 2006 reminds me of the Nazis in 1932, who got a plurality in the national parliamentary elections after intimating and beating up the opposition.  Do all Germans bear responsibility for all the evils deeds done by the Nazis--who came to power illegitimately--over the next 13 years?  The issue of collective responsibility is fraught, and has generated countless articles and books.  But I think the Palestinian people have a greater call to be separated from Hamas than say the Germans had to be separated from Hitler.  Nevertheless, German civilians ultimately did pay the price for their evil government.

[81alum]

Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

Hamas took 44% of the vote in 2006, which was a plurality.  The majority of Palestinians preferred someone else, but under the complex system by which seats were awarded, Hamas took 74 of the 135 seats.  Of course, Hamas made sure there was never another election.

Some political scientists warned that Hamas, due to a reign of violence toward opposition candidates the first time around, had an unfair advantage going into that election, but George W. Bush (advised by Condi Rice) refused to intervene to stop the elections.  Few people expected Hamas to win.

The Hamas election of 2006 reminds me of the Nazis in 1932, who got a plurality in the national parliamentary elections after intimating and beating up the opposition.  Do all Germans bear responsibility for all the evils deeds done by the Nazis--who came to power illegitimately--over the next 13 years?  The issue of collective responsibility is fraught, and has generated countless articles and books.  But I think the Palestinian people have a greater call to be separated from Hamas than say the Germans had to be separated from Hitler.  Nevertheless, German civilians ultimately did pay the price for their evil government.

[gocard14]

1697260899[/url]']

1697231674[/url]']
Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

Hamas took 44% of the vote in 2006, which was a plurality.  The majority of Palestinians preferred someone else, but under the complex system by which seats were awarded, Hamas took 74 of the 135 seats.  Of course, Hamas made sure there was never another election.

Some political scientists warned that Hamas, due to a reign of violence toward opposition candidates the first time around, had an unfair advantage going into that election, but George W. Bush (advised by Condi Rice) refused to intervene to stop the elections.  Few people expected Hamas to win.

The Hamas election of 2006 reminds me of the Nazis in 1932, who got a plurality in the national parliamentary elections after intimating and beating up the opposition.  Do all Germans bear responsibility for all the evils deeds done by the Nazis--who came to power illegitimately--over the next 13 years?  The issue of collective responsibility is fraught, and has generated countless articles and books.  But I think the Palestinian people have a greater call to be separated from Hamas than say the Germans had to be separated from Hitler.  Nevertheless, German civilians ultimately did pay the price for their evil government.

I admit to not recalling the circumstances of the time very well, but can only imagine the outcry if Bush had attempted to intervene to stop the elections. It is not like the US is viewed as a neutral party when it comes to Israel.

[gocard14]

1697260899[/url]']

1697231674[/url]']
Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

Hamas took 44% of the vote in 2006, which was a plurality.  The majority of Palestinians preferred someone else, but under the complex system by which seats were awarded, Hamas took 74 of the 135 seats.  Of course, Hamas made sure there was never another election.

Some political scientists warned that Hamas, due to a reign of violence toward opposition candidates the first time around, had an unfair advantage going into that election, but George W. Bush (advised by Condi Rice) refused to intervene to stop the elections.  Few people expected Hamas to win.

The Hamas election of 2006 reminds me of the Nazis in 1932, who got a plurality in the national parliamentary elections after intimating and beating up the opposition.  Do all Germans bear responsibility for all the evils deeds done by the Nazis--who came to power illegitimately--over the next 13 years?  The issue of collective responsibility is fraught, and has generated countless articles and books.  But I think the Palestinian people have a greater call to be separated from Hamas than say the Germans had to be separated from Hitler.  Nevertheless, German civilians ultimately did pay the price for their evil government.

I admit to not recalling the circumstances of the time very well, but can only imagine the outcry if Bush had attempted to intervene to stop the elections. It is not like the US is viewed as a neutral party when it comes to Israel.

[GK3]

1697260899[/url]']

1697231674[/url]']
Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

Hamas took 44% of the vote in 2006, which was a plurality.  The majority of Palestinians preferred someone else, but under the complex system by which seats were awarded, Hamas took 74 of the 135 seats.  Of course, Hamas made sure there was never another election.

Some political scientists warned that Hamas, due to a reign of violence toward opposition candidates the first time around, had an unfair advantage going into that election, but George W. Bush (advised by Condi Rice) refused to intervene to stop the elections.  Few people expected Hamas to win.

The Hamas election of 2006 reminds me of the Nazis in 1932, who got a plurality in the national parliamentary elections after intimating and beating up the opposition.  Do all Germans bear responsibility for all the evils deeds done by the Nazis--who came to power illegitimately--over the next 13 years?  The issue of collective responsibility is fraught, and has generated countless articles and books.  But I think the Palestinian people have a greater call to be separated from Hamas than say the Germans had to be separated from Hitler.  Nevertheless, German civilians ultimately did pay the price for their evil government.

I admit to not recalling the circumstances of the time very well, but can only imagine the outcry if Bush had attempted to intervene to stop the elections. It is not like the US is viewed as a neutral party when it comes to Israel.

We are sort of in a can't win position.  If we had spoken out louder and more insistently regarding the current Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian's living on the West Bank and maybe, just maybe this might not have happened.  Now we have to decide whether to give their government a full pass and jump in with both feet or stay as uninvolved as possible, which is probably impossible.
Our government needs to understand that this is one area where every time someone speaks on the subject, what they say may well come back and bite them on the ass.  Unfortunately too many politicians speak first and think second.

[GK3]

1697260899[/url]']

1697231674[/url]']
Wasn't Hamas voted in to power by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza during the election in 2006? Elections have consequences, right? 

Hamas took 44% of the vote in 2006, which was a plurality.  The majority of Palestinians preferred someone else, but under the complex system by which seats were awarded, Hamas took 74 of the 135 seats.  Of course, Hamas made sure there was never another election.

Some political scientists warned that Hamas, due to a reign of violence toward opposition candidates the first time around, had an unfair advantage going into that election, but George W. Bush (advised by Condi Rice) refused to intervene to stop the elections.  Few people expected Hamas to win.

The Hamas election of 2006 reminds me of the Nazis in 1932, who got a plurality in the national parliamentary elections after intimating and beating up the opposition.  Do all Germans bear responsibility for all the evils deeds done by the Nazis--who came to power illegitimately--over the next 13 years?  The issue of collective responsibility is fraught, and has generated countless articles and books.  But I think the Palestinian people have a greater call to be separated from Hamas than say the Germans had to be separated from Hitler.  Nevertheless, German civilians ultimately did pay the price for their evil government.

I admit to not recalling the circumstances of the time very well, but can only imagine the outcry if Bush had attempted to intervene to stop the elections. It is not like the US is viewed as a neutral party when it comes to Israel.

We are sort of in a can't win position.  If we had spoken out louder and more insistently regarding the current Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian's living on the West Bank and maybe, just maybe this might not have happened.  Now we have to decide whether to give their government a full pass and jump in with both feet or stay as uninvolved as possible, which is probably impossible.
Our government needs to understand that this is one area where every time someone speaks on the subject, what they say may well come back and bite them on the ass.  Unfortunately too many politicians speak first and think second.

[TonyLima]

Once again, I ask the admins to close this thread.

[TonyLima]

Once again, I ask the admins to close this thread.

[BobK]

Do not close this tread. Some very learned people here.

[BobK]

Do not close this tread. Some very learned people here.

[cardcrimson]

Once again, I ask the admins to close this thread.

Why?

[cardcrimson]

Once again, I ask the admins to close this thread.

Why?

[OutsiderFan]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

[OutsiderFan]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

[Hurlburt88]

some of you may find this podcast from Real Clear POlitcs interesting

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...trump.html

[Hurlburt88]

some of you may find this podcast from Real Clear POlitcs interesting

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...trump.html

[cardcrimson]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

[cardcrimson]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

[TreesAndBirds]

1697383405[/url]']
Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I disagree that “desperation” is the key factor here. Its certainly not the only significant one. The 9/11 suicide bombers didnt come from desperate circumstances. The Japanese suicide bombers during WW2 did what they did because they were taught that the emperor was god and they should sacrifice for him. I have read portions of the books used to educate the children of Gaza (in English translation) and they are horrific in what they teach about Jews and Israel. So please consider that it is how these young men are educated that is the key factor. 

Now of course circumstances in Gaza were bad before the war. So desperation would be understandable. But it didnt need to be that way.  When Israel withdrew from Gaza 20 years ago the population was half what it currently is. Its location on the Mediterranean is beautiful. Israel hoped that the people of Gaza would choose to build a good life and live in peace. It didnt happen. The leaders of Hamas chose something very different. 

All that said, you are welcome to listen to what these young men have to say. Because they are not looking to turn the area into a liberal democracy. Or anything close. They are looking to turn it into Iran (although more likely Syria would be the result). And I think people should hear that.

[TreesAndBirds]

1697383405[/url]']
Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I disagree that “desperation” is the key factor here. Its certainly not the only significant one. The 9/11 suicide bombers didnt come from desperate circumstances. The Japanese suicide bombers during WW2 did what they did because they were taught that the emperor was god and they should sacrifice for him. I have read portions of the books used to educate the children of Gaza (in English translation) and they are horrific in what they teach about Jews and Israel. So please consider that it is how these young men are educated that is the key factor. 

Now of course circumstances in Gaza were bad before the war. So desperation would be understandable. But it didnt need to be that way.  When Israel withdrew from Gaza 20 years ago the population was half what it currently is. Its location on the Mediterranean is beautiful. Israel hoped that the people of Gaza would choose to build a good life and live in peace. It didnt happen. The leaders of Hamas chose something very different. 

All that said, you are welcome to listen to what these young men have to say. Because they are not looking to turn the area into a liberal democracy. Or anything close. They are looking to turn it into Iran (although more likely Syria would be the result). And I think people should hear that.

[TrumpCard]

I have family, friends, clients, and community members who hold different views than I do on many subjects. I get along with most all of them. Few of them take offense when I state a position or vice versa. If we can’t talk respectfully about a subject then we don’t talk about it with each other.  If I knew all of your names, I wouldn’t boycott any of you over your views on Israel, even though I think some of you have views that are misguided. I value dialogue with you anyway. Although I’m unlikely to change my core beliefs, I do sometimes change my views on some points.

[TrumpCard]

I have family, friends, clients, and community members who hold different views than I do on many subjects. I get along with most all of them. Few of them take offense when I state a position or vice versa. If we can’t talk respectfully about a subject then we don’t talk about it with each other.  If I knew all of your names, I wouldn’t boycott any of you over your views on Israel, even though I think some of you have views that are misguided. I value dialogue with you anyway. Although I’m unlikely to change my core beliefs, I do sometimes change my views on some points.

[BigJohn043]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I guess the question I would ask is what exactly do you think Israel should do?

In 2006 they tried to trade land for peace.  They gave Gaza to the Palestinians to self govern.  In return, all they have gotten is rockets and now this awful terror attack.

So in all honesty, what do you think  Israel should do?

FWIW, every time I ask this question I get some version of I don't know.  Maybe something about a two state solution.  But the Palestinians won't accept the 2 state solution.  They have been offered various versions of the two state solution for over 50 years and their answer is always war.

[BigJohn043]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I guess the question I would ask is what exactly do you think Israel should do?

In 2006 they tried to trade land for peace.  They gave Gaza to the Palestinians to self govern.  In return, all they have gotten is rockets and now this awful terror attack.

So in all honesty, what do you think  Israel should do?

FWIW, every time I ask this question I get some version of I don't know.  Maybe something about a two state solution.  But the Palestinians won't accept the 2 state solution.  They have been offered various versions of the two state solution for over 50 years and their answer is always war.

[Mick]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

[Mick]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.