Jump to content

Hamas attacks Israel with kit rockets and AK47's... US sends aircraft carrier in support.


StringJunky

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

You seem remarkably out of touch with the real world. Protests has been met with Israelis using them for target practice at long range. Including school children.

And you seem remarkably entrenched in your position, because in the real world those sniper's became bombers and with the world's blessing...ūüôĄ¬†

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With Biden seeking to offer unlimited access to US conventional weapons stockpiles, I think he's tanked it. He seems to be totally blind to the high levels of global support the Gazans have. The bloke's a liability now. I don't know now who is the worst prospect; Trump or Biden. The guy's vision of the situation is too limited.

 

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Hyperbole much? Of course you know which is better, even if you disagree with this particular policy approach. 

Maybe so, but it's looking like the US needs a new direction because all it's doing atm is digging itself into  a hole, which could restrict his policy options when things change. What if Israel does something much worse beyond what they doing now, how is Biden going to bail out and not look like he'll 180 on a penny, like Trump? What Biden is ultimately doing is shutting down his options. This is a show that's going to keep running and especially as we don't have the moral high ground in this debacle, so let's not wring our hands in fake moral despair at the horror of it all.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a waste of time expecting anything other than complete and utter support for Israel from any US president. They are bought and paid for behind the scenes long before they get elected. They might make a few cautionary statements when stuff is kicking off, but that's just to keep up the pretence of fairness. 

In the USA, you get what you pay for, and Biden was purchased years ago. As was Trump. Not just in money, but in Jewish votes. If they didn't take the deal, they probably wouldn't get elected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What Biden is ultimately doing is shutting down his options.

A contrary viewpoint might suggest he’s playing the long game and ensuring leverage when the fighting ultimately ends and Israel is forced to govern and rebuild the area. 

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What if Israel does something much worse beyond what they doing now

We could ‚Äúwhat if?‚ÄĚ until the end of time. IF Israel does the things you mention, THEN we‚Äôll see exactly how the US responds‚Ķ but Biden isn‚Äôt the President of Israel and that‚Äôs who‚Äôs making these decisions we all wring our hands about‚Ķ Netanyahu and his inner circle, to be specific.¬†

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If they didn't take the deal, they probably wouldn't get elected. 

His support for Israel right now is likely to be his biggest challenge (other than geriatrics) in next years election and will certainly cost him votes.

He’s almost certainly doing this based on principles and worldview, not a sense of responsibility to past funders with deep pockets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

A contrary viewpoint might suggest he’s playing the long game and ensuring leverage when the fighting ultimately ends and Israel is forced to govern and rebuild the area. 

He doesn't look like he's playing the long game to me. To me, playing the long game is not overtly taking sides, when neither side is without blood on their hands. The moral compass favours neither one.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some painful truths here (Mack's post included a couple that apparently stung, DV cancelled because blunt opinions are allowed here).  Biden was always going to support Israel - every US president has entered office with the understanding that the US is a longterm ally of Israel and that the alliance has long been important to our weapons industries, to the American Jewish community of 8 million people, and to many of the large donors that almost every POTUS has depended on to win.  Yes, these influences can lead to our morally smelly policies regarding a Far Right Israeli militant government that seems to think dispossession, bullying, lockdowns, carpet bombing civilian areas, and severe economic repression are all legitimate instruments of foreign policy. 

Hamas is the twisted child that grows from that kind of violent soil.  If the Presidents were not bought from day one, there could be one who pushed a different approach, e.g. defunding Israel until it starts to learn actual diplomacy and other nonviolent tools.  As it is, North Gaza is essentially destroyed, over a million are homeless and facing a grim future in refugee camps, and....this is ridding the world of Hamas how?  This is just insuring a robust version of Hamas 2.0 that will regroup in sympathetic nations, raise money from donors whose hatred of Israel has only been ratcheted up, and prepare for the next stage of war.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

Biden was always going to support Israel - every US president has entered office with the understanding that the US is a longterm ally of Israel and that the alliance has long been important to our weapons industries, to the American Jewish community of 8 million people, and to many of the large donors that almost every POTUS has depended on to win. 

Alternately you could say that the US has treaties and agreements with them and the president is supposed to honor the letter and spirit of those agreements.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/#:~:text=The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense,of Forces Agreement (1994).

Israel is the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program.  This has been formalized by a 10-year (2019-2028) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
...
The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements, to include: a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994).

One might note that all of these were in place prior to the current administration.

Also "to many of the large donors that almost every POTUS has depended on to win. " suggests that these donors somehow contribute to the winner of the election most of the time. Any evidence that this is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

Alternately you could say that the US has treaties and agreements with them and the president is supposed to honor the letter and spirit of those agreements.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/#:~:text=The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense,of Forces Agreement (1994).

Israel is the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program.  This has been formalized by a 10-year (2019-2028) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
...
The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements, to include: a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994).

One might note that all of these were in place prior to the current administration.

Also "to many of the large donors that almost every POTUS has depended on to win. " suggests that these donors somehow contribute to the winner of the election most of the time. Any evidence that this is true?

12 individuals from both sides contributed 7.5% of  donations to their parties.

Given that a US election was won the other day by 1 vote in a town of 40000. Assuming equal party contributions, 3.5%  either way looks like a potential influence to me.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/12-megadonors-accounted-75-political-giving-past-decade/story?id=77189636

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

12 individuals from both sides contributed 7.5% of  donations to their parties.

"six of whom largely supported Democrats and six of whom generally supported Republicans"

So basically they would cancel out. And presidential candidates are not relying on the same donors, which was the implication of the previous assertion.

 

ETA: and there's a big asterisk on the numbers

"The $3.4 billion from the 12 biggest donors amounts to one in every $13 that all federal campaigns and outside groups raised over the past decade, the analysis shows.

Roughly $1.4 billion of that came from the self-funding of the unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaigns of Bloomberg L.P. founder Michael Bloomberg and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer -- with Bloomberg alone dropping more than $1 billion of his own money into his historically expensive presidential bid."

So 40% of the contributions were from self-funding of campaigns, and not anyone trying to influence elections because of support for Israel.

 

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Given that a US election was won the other day by 1 vote in a town of 40000. Assuming equal party contributions, 3.5%  either way looks like a potential influence to me.

And that's not the president. A local elected official in a town of 40,000 has no say in foreign policy (that election was for a parish sheriff in Louisiana).  

‚ÄĒ-

As to an earlier comment, if a US president were to withhold or restrict aid, would Israel listen to us? What would be the incentive to get to a result that we wanted? Like a cease-fire. Or beyond.

Consider that other countries with different agendas, contrary to the US’s,  might be willing to step in and replace it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Also "to many of the large donors that almost every POTUS has depended on to win. " suggests that these donors somehow contribute to the winner of the election most of the time. Any evidence that this is true?

Not what I was saying, but rather that anyone who won, or ran in the general election, will have some donors who favor strong support of Israel.  While that segment matters more to some candidates than others, all are aware of the effect on their next election and downstream elections if they try to move their party away from our treaties and alliance with Israel.  It's a political third rail, as they say.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

As it is, North Gaza is essentially destroyed, over a million are homeless and facing a grim future in refugee camps, and....this is ridding the world of Hamas how?  This is just insuring a robust version of Hamas 2.0 that will regroup in sympathetic nations, raise money from donors whose hatred of Israel has only been ratcheted up, and prepare for the next stage of war.  

 

Right. Which is what Hamas and those that backed them in their latest terror attack on Israel wanted. Maybe not the completeness of the violent retaliation, but certainly the re-igniting of the hatred toward Israel.

I agree both sides have blood on their hands. I just don't see what other options either side has available given the hatred of Israel by all those that have suffered from it's creation and existence, historically and recently. Certainly Israel cannot trust terrorists with clearly stated objectives to eliminate their existence, yet there seems to be little they can do to eliminate the threat without using means that would perpetuate it.

 

Both sides, for the most part, were born with the problem.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, this shite is generational.  BTW, who keeps dropping in DVs and then splitting?  Just cancelled Swanson's DV because it did not seem to me the post was abrasive or misleading, and it ended with a good question (which I'm unable to answer).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Probably an armchair observer.

Not me.(Just working out what  a DV is.)

Don't see Swansont getting them a lot.

I think Israel needs Net. et als' monkeys off their back but the only reason they can't is likely that the Palestinians prefer them to to more accommodating/sane  alternative and so don't give an inch(with the result  that the Israelis turn to them in the voting booth)

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would hope that the Truce gets extended. The current price seems to be 10 Israeli hostages per day, which I think includes release of 30 Palestinian prisoners if the 3 to 1 ratio they've used holds.

The longer the Truce lasts the more potential likely exists for some long term agreement, I would expect. Though I would also expect Israel would stay determined to eliminate Hamas, short of Hamas clearly accepting the right to existence for the state of Israel, and abandoning their stated goal of Israel's elimination.

Unlikely, but maybe some other temporary semi-peaceful coexistence can result, as it seemed but clearly wasn't before the Hamas atrocities of October 7.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In chronological order:

Hamas said, "We will eliminate all Jews from the planet. Then we will destroy the U.S.A.." 

Israel said, "We will eliminate Hamas from Gaza."

Which side is lying?

If they are both telling the truth as they see it, do you support world wide killing of Jews and Americans, or do you support killing Hamas members in Gaza?

I believe both sides fully intend to do exactly what they say. I support the side that plans to leave me alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OptimisticCynic said:

Israel said, "We will eliminate Hamas from Gaza."

What they say is irrelevant. What they actually did is kill about 15,000 innocent Palestinians, mostly women and children. 

America went doo-lally when twenty kids were murdered in Sandy Hook. But 8,000 Palestinian children are slaughtered and they don't give a toss. 

Since Israel is the 51st state in all but name, it's vastly hypocritical. 

The BBC news did a piece the other day that reported that Hamas had been openly preparing that attack for a couple of years, in full view of the USA spy satellites and all of the Israeli security apparatus. Which makes the claim that the lax defensive measure were deliberate even more obvious. 

The obvious motive is the "final solution" to the "Palestinian Problem", which is being done gradually, in a drip-drip process, to make it less obvious to a gullible public.

Edited by mistermack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What they say is irrelevant. What they actually did is kill about 15,000 innocent Palestinians, mostly women and children. 

America went doo-lally when twenty kids were murdered in Sandy Hook. But 8,000 Palestinian children are slaughtered and the don't give a toss. 

Since Israel is the 51st state in all but name, it's vastly hypocritical. 

I deduce or infer (I'm not sure which is correct usage here), from your addressing only one side in your reply, that you either believe that Hamas is lying or you support world wide killing of Jews and Americans. Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OptimisticCynic said:

I deduce or infer (I'm not sure which is correct usage here), from your addressing only one side in your reply, that you either believe that Hamas is lying or you support world wide killing of Jews and Americans. Which is it?

That's idiotic. Words are meaningless from either side. The facts are the dead bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's idiotic. Words are meaningless from either side. The facts are the dead bodies.

Okay, which pile of dead bodies do you want to count first? The dead residents of the Gaza strip, men, women and children that were directly killed by Hamas members since they seized power? The Gaza residents who died from lack of resources because Hamas seized the resources for themselves? The residents who died from Israeli fire because Hamas forced them to stay put in the line of fire or be killed by Hamas immediately? The Israel residents who were killed by Hamas on October 7? The Israeli soldiers killed by Hamas? The Hamas fighters who were killed by IDF attacks? The Israelites killed by Hamas launched rockets over the last thirty years? Pick one and we can start counting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not taking your word for any of that. The only thing you can be sure of, is that Gaza is a modern day concentration camp, 25 miles by six approximately, with about 2.5 million people confined in misery. 

Of course there will be Hamas, or similar. It is a certain creation of millions of people being kept lifetime prisoners in disgusting conditions. 

The state of Israel created Hamas. They need bogey men to justify their so-called "self-defence" to a gullible public. 

And it's worked. At least on you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm not taking your word for any of that. The only thing you can be sure of, is that Gaza is a modern day concentration camp, 25 miles by six approximately, with about 2.5 million people confined in misery. 

Of course there will be Hamas, or similar. It is a certain creation of millions of people being kept lifetime prisoners in disgusting conditions. 

The state of Israel created Hamas. They need bogey men to justify their so-called "self-defence" to a gullible public. 

And it's worked. At least on you. 

I'm not taking your word for any of that. The only thing you can be sure of is that someone told you what you think you know. 

You should NOT take my word. I'm a total stranger. Nor should you accept what someone tells you just because you know that person. Check against other sources. Deliberately search for evidence to prove your beliefs wrong. Finding support for your beliefs is usually very easy. Reality is not balanced. Reality is rarely one sided.

Act like a scientist, do your research and test your hypotheses.

While we're at it, we should

Free Palestine From Hamas !

Why is it? The words and actions of Hamas match, but you won't admit they might really mean what they say?

As I said before, I'm supporting the side that is not threatening to kill me and everyone I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.