On Israel and Gaza.... What the hell do you expect the guy to do?

[luiza]

Open the pipeline

Vote with the majority of the UN, not against it

Dissolve homeland security & TSA, revoke the PA

Constraint the pentagon to a sane annual budget

Revoke the national security act

Conscript every man/woman @ 18 to local militia duty

Revoke nafta, consider VAT

Balance the budget

Dissolve the Fed

Reboot the CDC, and FDA

and that's just for starters.....

~S~

There is absolutely no reason to be logical and sensible here .
Why upset the chatter monkeys and fantasy merchants ? You will stretch their brains to implosion point .
They will be so upset if millions are not blown to pieces or atomised .

 

[rampart]

I'm certainly not going to argue with any of those....

However the problem at hand right now being Israel<>Gaza.... Requiring immediate decisions and positions. It's a very difficult position for anyone to be in and so far he seems to be handling it quite well. This isn't the first time I've had a compliment for Mr. Biden.... And I'm sure I'll have plenty of complaints in the future.

the sure thing is that biden has listened to experts and consulted rand's computers. you can't count on that with a guy who operates at a "gut feeling" level.

 

[justoffal]

the sure thing is that biden has listened to experts and consulted rand's computers. you can't count on that with a guy who operates at a "gut feeling" level.

The people who are looking for an immediate solution to this aren't doing any thinking. If that area around Yemen explodes completely into full-blown war the cascading economic effect will be catastrophic.

The measured response that they're getting right now is just about right.

Protect international shipping traffic keep the world ticking and keep looking for a solution.

He could just unleash the Navy and turn the whole Yemeni coast into a pile of cold dust pretty quickly. But that could draw in China who are already itching for a conflict because of Taiwan.

There are no immediate answers here. The only constant that I can see surviving the chaos and the melee is that Hamas has to go.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hamas, should definetly be destroyed. That does not mean maximum destruction against all people living in Gaza. Quicker and easier, to be sure, but not right. If I (me, myself) was forced to a binary decision of (A) Allowing Hamas to exist in Gaza, or (B) killing every living thing in Gaza, I would indeed favor option "B". Problem is, it is not a binary choice, just quickest means to effect an end. The end does not justify the means.

So, instead of a two state solution, you want a three state solution. Are you on crack?

This is not a fair representation of the choices Israel faces. Israel has been faithfully following International Humanitarian Law, which is the collective wisdom of the civilized world on how to minimize civilian casualties in war. No IDF officer, not even Halevi or Gallant, can order a strike on any target that might result in civilian casualties unless an IDF lawyer first certifies that the strike in all its details is consistent with IHL.

This means Israeli is causing the minimum number of civilian casualties necessary to pursue and destroy Hamas. In the estimate of the IDF, doing any less would allow Hamas to survive and the war to go on forever. Israel will reduce the intensity of fighting when Hamas' ability to fight and survive has been sufficiently degraded; Gallant says that will happen now in the North, but not yet in the South.

There has not been a minute since 1920 when the Arabs/Palestinians have been willing to live in peace with the Jews/Israel. The UN proposed the first two state solution in 1948, which the Jews accepted and to which the Arabs promised to eradicate every Jew in Palestine. Nothing has changed since then. Hamas still makes that promise, and recent polls show the Palestinians overwhelmingly support the eradication of Jews in the ME and even about 2/3 of the larger Arab populace does.

There clearly is no rational basis for believing a two state solution to the conflict is possible or that it will be in the foreseeable future. This being the case, Israel cannot waste time and resources considering how it actions in Gaza might effect the possibility of an impossible two state solution to the conflict.

 

[justoffal]

This is not a fair representation of the choices Israel faces. Israel has been faithfully following International Humanitarian Law, which is the collective wisdom of the civilized world on how to minimize civilian casualties in war. No IDF officer, not even Halevi or Gallant, can order a strike on any target that might result in civilian casualties unless an IDF lawyer first certifies that the strike in all its details is consistent with IHL.

This means Israeli is causing the minimum number of civilian casualties necessary to pursue and destroy Hamas. In the estimate of the IDF, doing any less would allow Hamas to survive and the war to go on forever. Israel will reduce the intensity of fighting when Hamas' ability to fight and survive has been sufficiently degraded; Gallant says that will happen now in the North, but not yet in the South.

There has not been a minute since 1920 when the Arabs/Palestinians have been willing to live in peace with the Jews/Israel. The UN proposed the first two state solution in 1948, which the Jews accepted and to which the Arabs promised to eradicate every Jew in Palestine. Nothing has changed since then. Hamas still makes that promise, and recent polls show the Palestinians overwhelmingly support the eradication of Jews in the ME and even about 2/3 of the larger Arab populace does.

There clearly is no rational basis for believing a two state solution to the conflict is possible or that it will be in the foreseeable future. This being the case, Israel cannot waste time and resources considering how it actions in Gaza might effect the possibility of an impossible two state solution to the conflict.

Just about right

 

[rampart]

The people who are looking for an immediate solution to this aren't doing any thinking. If that area around Yemen explodes completely into full-blown war the cascading economic effect will be catastrophic.

The measured response that they're getting right now is just about right.

Protect international shipping traffic keep the world ticking and keep looking for a solution.

He could just unleash the Navy and turn the whole Yemeni coast into a pile of cold dust pretty quickly. But that could draw in China who are already itching for a conflict because of Taiwan.

There are no immediate answers here. The only constant that I can see surviving the chaos and the melee is that Hamas has to go.

this is not a sporting event, as many seem to think. nor is it "fun" for the gazans or the young israelis doing the job.

 

[luiza]

?????????

~S~

Israel and USeLess created and funded Hamas .
All of the Iranese Religious leaders have Jewish bloodlines and antecedents .
Iran has sold its future to BRICS via Russian patronage .

So whom at the very top is fighting who? And Why ?

Which is another way of restating the False Flag nature at the bottom of this conflict .

Could my dear Russian pals be at the bottom , using Iran mainly as their proxy to finally out manoeuvre the USeLess when serious business commences?
That is , all that has happened so far in geo-political terms has been theatre to set up the real battlefield which possibly will be Syria with Russia and friends taking on Israel and Use Less for effective control of the ME and all its resource riches ?

It's better than the Space Alien narratives .rofl .Although I am more than a little serious . Makes a change from Chess .
.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Look as much as I may dislike the guy He's showing some real intestinal fortitude here and standing up to the crazies in his party and in his own backyard.

This is what a President does.
I think he's scoring some serious points on this one.

I don't disagree with you about Biden's recent conduct, but he'd have to score a whole lot of points to make up for how he began his presidency by snubbing Israel, lashing out viciously at Saudi Arabia and courting the country that hates the US most, Iran. One could argue that Iran would not have become emboldened to promote the attacks on Israel or the Houthis attacks on Red Sea shipping if Biden had continued Trump's harsh policies toward Iran.

 

[justoffal]

I don't disagree with you about Biden's recent conduct, but he'd have to score a whole lot of points to make up for how he began his presidency by snubbing Israel, lashing out viciously at Saudi Arabia and courting the country that hates the US most, Iran. One could argue that Iran would not have become emboldened to promote the attacks on Israel or the Houthis attacks on Red Sea shipping if Biden had continued Trump's harsh policies toward Iran.

Indeed.....you are quite right.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you are in favor of destroying the Houthis but not Hamas? You can't have it both ways.

I am beginning to think that Gaza should be split in half, with the northern portion under UN supervision. If it couldn't prevent further attacks on Israel, the UN would lose all of its antisemitic credibility and Israel would be justified in taking over that area.

The southern portion of Gaza should remain under Israeli military control until it is either pacified and wants to rejoin with the northern portion, or is turned over to Egyptian or other moderate Muslim authority. If this fails, Israel would be justified in turning into a permanent occupation zone. Gaza should not just be Israel's problem.

We want the UN out of the ME, not more deeply embedded in the ME. The UN is the greatest obstacle to peace in the ME. For UN troops to stop terror attacks for Gaza they would have to be armed and empowered to use force against Palestinian terrorists, perhaps even killing some of them, and that will never happen.

UNRWA calls itself an aid organization, but it distributes aid no on the basis of need but on the basis of pollical status. The original proposal for UNRWA would have had it provided to the recent refugees for five years while getting them resettled and on their own, but the Arab nations, still determined to eradicate the Jews, refused to endorse it, so the UN bestowed hereditary refugee status on them, abandoned efforts to resettle them and taught them the only way they could improve their situation was to destroy Israel. Had the original proposal for UNRWA passed, perhaps enough of the refugees would have been resettled and starting new lives so that there would be less support for continuing the conflict with Israel.

 

[White 6]

This is not a fair representation of the choices Israel faces. Israel has been faithfully following International Humanitarian Law, which is the collective wisdom of the civilized world on how to minimize civilian casualties in war. No IDF officer, not even Halevi or Gallant, can order a strike on any target that might result in civilian casualties unless an IDF lawyer first certifies that the strike in all its details is consistent with IHL.

This means Israeli is causing the minimum number of civilian casualties necessary to pursue and destroy Hamas. In the estimate of the IDF, doing any less would allow Hamas to survive and the war to go on forever. Israel will reduce the intensity of fighting when Hamas' ability to fight and survive has been sufficiently degraded; Gallant says that will happen now in the North, but not yet in the South.

There has not been a minute since 1920 when the Arabs/Palestinians have been willing to live in peace with the Jews/Israel. The UN proposed the first two state solution in 1948, which the Jews accepted and to which the Arabs promised to eradicate every Jew in Palestine. Nothing has changed since then. Hamas still makes that promise, and recent polls show the Palestinians overwhelmingly support the eradication of Jews in the ME and even about 2/3 of the larger Arab populace does.

There clearly is no rational basis for believing a two state solution to the conflict is possible or that it will be in the foreseeable future. This being the case, Israel cannot waste time and resources considering how it actions in Gaza might effect the possibility of an impossible two state solution to the conflict.

I did not say Israel was trying to wage maximum destruction on the Palestinian people in Gaza, though that is how the misguided pro-palestinian protests and protestor depict it. I for one, do not believe it too be true. I have met IDF Officers, while on assignment on foreign soil and have respect of the ones, I have met. That is certainly not true of all foreign officers I have met or worked with from the Middle East or Europe.

I agree, there is "no rational basis for believing a two state solution to the conflict is possible." If I mentioned it in passing, it was thinking of a poster here proposed splitting Gaza, sounding like a 3 state solution. If it had been up to me, I never would have given back sections of the Golan Heights and certainly would not suggest for Israel security that it trust or at this point even tolerate those that hate Israel remaining that proximity.

 

[rampart]

We want the UN out of the ME, not more deeply embedded in the ME. The UN is the greatest obstacle to peace in the ME. For UN troops to stop terror attacks for Gaza they would have to be armed and empowered to use force against Palestinian terrorists, perhaps even killing some of them, and that will never happen.

UNRWA calls itself an aid organization, but it distributes aid no on the basis of need but on the basis of pollical status. The original proposal for UNRWA would have had it provided to the recent refugees for five years while getting them resettled and on their own, but the Arab nations, still determined to eradicate the Jews, refused to endorse it, so the UN bestowed hereditary refugee status on them, abandoned efforts to resettle them and taught them the only way they could improve their situation was to destroy Israel. Had the original proposal for UNRWA passed, perhaps enough of the refugees would have been resettled and starting new lives so that there would be less support for continuing the conflict with Israel.

peace keepers appear to be necessary. if not the un, who do you suggest?

 

[toomuchtime_]

peace keepers appear to be necessary. if not the un, who do you suggest?

Israel will protect its own borders.

 

[sparky]

I'm certainly not going to argue with any of those....

You're free to JO

It's a very difficult position for anyone to be in and so far he seems to be handling it quite well.

It's a no win position for any potus JO

all of them, back to FDR , only saw existentialist , not the zionist means to achieve it

ergo, we are their b*tch

~S~

 

[sparky]

There is absolutely no reason to be logical and sensible here .

apologies Lu, i'll break out the top shelf, and devolve into inebriated bliss then..... ~S~

 

[surada]

Open the pipeline

Vote with the majority of the UN, not against it

Dissolve homeland security & TSA, revoke the PA

Constraint the pentagon to a sane annual budget

Revoke the national security act

Conscript every man/woman @ 18 to local militia duty

Revoke nafta, consider VAT

Balance the budget

Dissolve the Fed

Reboot the CDC, and FDA

and that's just for starters.....

~S~

What pipeline?

 

[Matted Joybeard]

I am not monolithically dedicated to anyone set of political principles. That is why I have no problem defending Joe Biden at this point in the paradoxical situation he is facing right now with the Israel<>Gaza war.

Regardless of what I like I dislike about him so far I think he has done very well managing this really terrible situation. As far as the US Navy response to the piracy taking place off of the coast of Yemen It looks like we have shown a remarkable amount of restraint and given many, many warnings prior to finally rolling into action to protect international shipping. The response has been measured and precise just the way it should be.

The pirates or whoever they are/are lucky that the president doesn't just unleash the US Navy totally because there is no force on Earth that can match the United States Navy. The amount of destruction that it could cause an a short period of time is completely mind-boggling by anyone's estimate. Let's hope it doesn't get there.

In the meantime an 81-year-old man who is visibly losing his abilities Is tasked with the impossible chore of trying to find some humanitarian reason in the midst of all of this religiously fueled vitriol. His probable decision that Hamas needs to go even if Gaza needs to stay is most likely the only solution going forward that has any real merit. This decision could not have been easy because it is costing him personally and politically in his own familiar circles. For those that are criticizing the way he's handling things I offer a challenge.... Got any better ideas? I Seriously doubt it.

As the post title asks..." What the hell do you expect the guy to do?"

Jo

The US isn't going to let the warbirds fly from a nuclear armed sub. Yemen has nothing to destroy really. Is the US really going light the mideast on fire with Iran?

 

[sparky]

What pipeline?

Ours Surada

a little energy independence might lessen our ME 'boots on the ground'

~S~

 

[surada]

Israel will protect its own borders.

Israel's borders have been fluid for 70 years.

 

[surada]

Ours Surada

a little energy independence might lessen our ME 'boots on the ground'

~S~

Which one? Keystone XL is Canadian and only benefits the Chinese owners of Canadian tarsands.

We buy very little oil from the Middle East. Most imports are from Mexico and Canada.. Venezuela until Trump sanctioned them.. we started buying from Russia.