It’s possible to support things implicitly such as by not acknowledging war crimes as crimes.
Sure, that would be possible, but that isn't the scenario here.
It’s possible to support things implicitly such as by not acknowledging war crimes as crimes.
There isn't any way to "stop" it, since it inherently involves the creation of Israel as a state in the first place. It's already happened.They can't stop this nakba
Many factors involved that don't implicate politics/government. West Bank is bigger, less densely populated, with better land and more access to water for example.West Bank is doing better then Gaza
Firing thousands of rockets, suicide bombings and unrestrained state backed terrorism is an act of war
After reading this exchange, I can't help but wonder if Israel sort-of hamstrings itself if the only way it can respond to a terrorist attack is a "declaration of war" (so called) by the military. Which then raises the prestige of Palestine to the level of an enemy state wholly apart from Israel.That would of course mean Gaza is a state, and a state at war at that, and make Palestinian resistance to siege and occupation the legitimate actions of a belligerent power.
This goes back to what I mentioned I suspected about US projection of power. Following this almost seemingly off-the-cuff, impromptu remark by Biden, almost immediately Israeli officials expressed a willingness to consider a temporary, limited break in hostilities in order to facilitate release of hostages, prisoner exchanges, and similar.This is a very interesting interaction because, as the story mentions, he said this in a what seemed like impromptu way in response to being interrupted by a rabbi from the crowd. The rabbi asked Biden call for a ceasefire "right now." Immediately, a chorus of "No, no!" erupted from the rest of the crowd.
Moments later, they calmed down to let Biden respond, and he said he "supported a pause to the fighting." The rabbi then asked for clarification - if that means ceasefire - and Biden clarified that means "give time to get the prisoners out." This seemed to please the rabbi.
Additionally a poll this week by the Arab American Institute showed that Biden’s support among Arab Americans is down from a high of 59% three years ago to 17% in October.
It’s possible to support things implicitly such as by not acknowledging war crimes as crimes.
West Bank is doing better then Gaza
Unfortunately, the West Bank by itself may not be sufficient. iirc, one of the "two state" ideas was rejected by the Arab countries because it didn't provide enough space for all of the Palestinians. There are ~2½ million Palestinians in the West Bank now, but there are close to 6 million more Palestinians in the myriad refugee camps (I think that number includes the ~2m in Gaza). The land area of Israel is comparable to that of Massachusetts (Mass is slightly larger, and of course the contours are different), but that includes the Negev Desert, which appears to take up about half of Israel, just eyeballing it on the map (Wikipedia says the Negev comprises 55% of Israel's land area). The whole state of Massachusetts has a population about equal to the Jewish population of Israel. Imagine trying to cram twice the population of Massachusetts into Eastern Mass, from the coast to Worcester, let's say, where Worcester to New York is a desert. That would be a tall order, even if they weren't all poised to shoot each other. (Wikipedia says ~470,000 Jews live in the Negev, mainly around the city of Beersheba. Some North American desert cities are larger than that, so maybe there's room for growth in Israel's desert. otoh, North American desert cities suffer pretty bad droughts that are only going to get worse without some kind of enormous engineering project - a new enormous engineering project, I should say, as they'd already done some, just to get to where they are. I honestly don't know how so many people live in Las Vegas or Phoenix today, nvm what they're going to do in 75 years.)Many factors involved that don't implicate politics/government. West Bank is bigger, less densely populated, with better land and more access to water for example.
This has not been demonstrated.Sure, that would be possible, but that isn't the scenario here.
Sure enough, but we could start with a condemnation of some kind.Indeed, but on the other hand, I don't think it's useful to mirror the ultralib habit of attempting to anathematize anyone who doesn't condemn the bad thing in exactly the right way.
Sure enough, but we could start with a condemnation of some kind.
This has not been demonstrated.
The leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah has given his speech.
Over an hour long.
Hassan Nasrallah - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'm going to take this opportunity to condemn the US administration for making a disgustingly cynical calculation on how many people Israel has a window to massacre before they have to start making ceasefire calls that Bibi will ignore in any case.
I'm also going to take the opportunity to point out that the earnings calls at major US defense contractors make it pretty clear they are culpable in these crimes in much the same way that IG Farben was complicit in the Holocaust.
Oh and check this out! This has to be the greatest headline of all time:
View attachment 676684
The Economist really living up to its horrid history.
Many factors involved that don't implicate politics/government. West Bank is bigger, less densely populated, with better land and more access to water for example.
Is there a tl;dw anywhere?
Does it at least conclude that it would be so damaging to ~*MaRKeTs*~ that it should be avoided by all rational actors? Can they at least get to the right answer for a tertiary reason?
I can't find a single comprehensive summary of his speech anywhere.
Explicit in your support of genocide, yes. Again pretending genocides aren't happening is the best way to give them a blank check and it's the oldest trick in the book for even explicit genocidaire policy. That is to say, you fit the profile. And then using idiosyncratic criteria absolutely no other human being on earth is copasetic with to argue genocides aren't what heads of state are calling them is then just a nakedly political stance. Par for the course for this thread honestly but I won't be letting you get away with it, capice?That seems to be a you problem. I've been pretty explicit. If you'd like clarity, maybe try ask better questions instead of looking for various ways you can say "Gotcha, you support genocide!"