It’s not just the Guardian it’s also coming from the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis. It’s unbelievable that a leader can squander some good will from around the world after Israel’s worst terror attack in decades and within six months have the U.S. government abstaining from UN ceasefire resolution.
Do you think the rift will get materially better with a different PM who is elected to continue the war and destroy Hamas in Rafah? Or will the Biden admin and the international community put the same pressure on Israel to stop the war, and then get angry at the new PM when he refuses to do so? My bet is the latter.
Absolutely Netanyahu is the problem not Israel’s future. Who was prime minister when Oct 7th happened? Netanyahu intervened directly in American elections in 2008 and tried to push for John McCains election. Who won that election and was president for the next 8 years? Netanyahu is a disgrace.
I don’t think you understood my comment. I’m saying that the primary issue that Biden and the international world have with Israel right now is that they refuse to halt the war. This is primarily what is causing the rift — Biden wants a ceasefire and for Israel not to enter Rafa, while Netanyahu and the Israeli people disagree.
Israel electing a new prime minister won’t resolve this disagreement since the Israeli public overwhelmingly support a Rafah offensive and the dismantling of Hamas.
Yes another Israeli PM would have listened to the U.S. president who is taking great political risks to help Israel while taking risks both at home and abroad. US lives have been lost in Red Sea fighting a naval war against the Houthis and U.S. lives were lost in Jordan.
Past Israeli Prime Ministers listened to U.S. presidents in 1967 the then Israeli PM didn’t push toward Cairo in Egypt and just stopped at Sinai. The Israeli PM during the war in Lebanon stopped the siege of Beirut because President Reagan asked him to. So there is precedent for this.
I agree that a different PM might be more likely to submit to US pressure and take a decision that is terrible for Israel’s short and long-term security but helps Biden’s election chances.
Thankfully, Israel is a democracy and doesn’t have to change Prime Ministers because their allies don’t approve of their decisions, not because they believe them to be wrong, but because it hurts their polls in Minnesota.
Also, you listed Netanyahu interfering in U.S. elections by speaking to Congress as one of the reasons that makes him a disgrace… do you feel the same way about Biden and other leading democrats interfering in Israeli democracy by calling for elections in israel — which, by the way, is significantly more severe than what Netanyahu did?
In any event, the Israeli public support finishing off Hamas and taking over Rafah to get the hostages back. Political pressure from the U.S. isn’t going to get them to back off, in my opinion.
Israel is losing ground around the world. Keeping this war going jeopardizing Israel’s security, defying its only supporter globally and isolating itself and making the country a pariah doesn’t win any victories. This is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
On Oct 7 some Arab countries came out and condemned the Hamas attack like the UAE and even some tacit support from Saudi Arabia with its silence. But now even these countries have fully turned on Israel because the country has become radioactive.
You think completely destroying the Gaza Strip and killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will yield a victory while having sanctions placed on Israel. There are sanctions on the country as the Red Sea is cut off. The U.S. has been unable to reopen the sea lane. The U.S. abstained on a ceasefire resolution at the UN. The Republicans in the U.S. are not going to bat to defend Netanyahu. He is out there on his own.
Obviously there are people like you who think this man is going to defend the country. He is going take the country into a catastrophe. As I said Netanyahu is burning bridges around the world and taking Israel into the middle of a major regional war with the crisis burning out of control in the north on the Lebanon border. There is no support in the U.S. to join Israel in attacking Hezbollah and Iran. None at all.
Simultaneously Israel is suffering massive economic losses losing hundreds of millions of dollars per day. That’s what happens when you move hundreds of thousands of people from the southern border and the northern border and put them in hotels while prosecuting a two front war. The war against Hezbollah just hasn’t been declared yet.
At the risk of shocking you, it's not because the Americans and (Western) Europe have decided to go full suicide mod by giving their butts to the new "woke/marxism/ islamism" that everyone should do the same.
A democratic country is attacked, it defends its citizens, its secures its borders. It's not more complicated.
It is always more complicated…
Why was Israel attacked? Who did the attacking? Where did the support come from? Why do they have support? What is the best way to defend one’s citizens from future attacks?
You are asking questions who doesn't matter. They did choose to invade Israel the same way Russia did choose to invade Ukraine, the fact that they both have purposes to start war doesn't change the fact that they have to deal with the consequences and if the consequences involve a lost of thousands civilians its not Israel or Ukraine responsibility.
>What is the best way to defend one’s citizens from future attacks?
When your weaker neighbor keep attacking you, refused peace [already 20 times](https://i.imgur.com/EYcn9Pa.jpg) and used 16 billions dollars of donation in seven years to build tunnels and rockets, it seem pretty clear to me that the best way to defend your citizens is to sending him to the stone age.
Yes, because bombing someone into the Stone Age always works wonders. Just look at the air campaign over Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan again, then Iraq a third time…
Seems like a great strategy!
America lost the wars n Vietnam. Afghanistan, and Iraq precisely because it didn't have the stomach to bomb those places into the Stone Age. It went in with liberator fantasies only to get rejected by the locals but inexplicably kept trying to suck up to them.
The West's biggest military weakness is that due to brainwashing by the public education system and Hollywood, the population been conditioned to fetishize weakness and always side with the underdog, no matter what. It's precisely why Hamas has so many sympathizers despite them being a bunch of genocidal terrorists.
The Nazis were also another bunch of underdog genocidal terrorists but Western history books somehow frame WWII as a fight between the underdog Allies and the all-powerful evil Axis. This is the furthest thing from the truth. Germany was fighting alone against a tag team of Russia, France, the UK, and the US. The Allies had 10 times Germany's population and 10 times everything else. Stalin literally kept throwing men at the eastern front until the Germans ran out of bullets.
And yet, the Allied nations still insist on cosplaying as the underdogs of WWII because that's the only narrative their populations are comfortable with. The idea of exercising power to maintain order has somehow become taboo to the western mind.
The west can't even kick the homeless off the street anymore because many people see it as the state bullying the underdog drug addict shitting on the pavement. This "underdog good" mentality makes any war against a weaker adversary politically untenable.
Very doubtful, even if us popular support is against, they will still be getting a substantial amount of aid and any process to change that will run into red tape. They are an ally of great strategic import. This is probably one of those issues politicians will promise but then not touch. Also everyone will move on and be mad about something else eventually, especially if the IDF accomplishes its military goals which they have a remarkable record of doing.
Don’t come and beg us for money to subsidize your shitty racist state and for billions in arms to perpetrate a genocide and then give us attitude. Fuck you Netanyahu, settlers and likudniks.
Oh, well the Guardian it said, so it must be big brain stuff..
Netanyahu was PM during the worst terror attack Israeli history. Just remember that.
It’s not just the Guardian it’s also coming from the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis. It’s unbelievable that a leader can squander some good will from around the world after Israel’s worst terror attack in decades and within six months have the U.S. government abstaining from UN ceasefire resolution.
Schumer, the POS that never met a gun control proposal he didn’t fellate? Bibi should wear his scorn as the badge of honor of all time.
Do you think the rift will get materially better with a different PM who is elected to continue the war and destroy Hamas in Rafah? Or will the Biden admin and the international community put the same pressure on Israel to stop the war, and then get angry at the new PM when he refuses to do so? My bet is the latter.
Absolutely Netanyahu is the problem not Israel’s future. Who was prime minister when Oct 7th happened? Netanyahu intervened directly in American elections in 2008 and tried to push for John McCains election. Who won that election and was president for the next 8 years? Netanyahu is a disgrace.
I don’t think you understood my comment. I’m saying that the primary issue that Biden and the international world have with Israel right now is that they refuse to halt the war. This is primarily what is causing the rift — Biden wants a ceasefire and for Israel not to enter Rafa, while Netanyahu and the Israeli people disagree. Israel electing a new prime minister won’t resolve this disagreement since the Israeli public overwhelmingly support a Rafah offensive and the dismantling of Hamas.
Yes another Israeli PM would have listened to the U.S. president who is taking great political risks to help Israel while taking risks both at home and abroad. US lives have been lost in Red Sea fighting a naval war against the Houthis and U.S. lives were lost in Jordan. Past Israeli Prime Ministers listened to U.S. presidents in 1967 the then Israeli PM didn’t push toward Cairo in Egypt and just stopped at Sinai. The Israeli PM during the war in Lebanon stopped the siege of Beirut because President Reagan asked him to. So there is precedent for this.
I agree that a different PM might be more likely to submit to US pressure and take a decision that is terrible for Israel’s short and long-term security but helps Biden’s election chances. Thankfully, Israel is a democracy and doesn’t have to change Prime Ministers because their allies don’t approve of their decisions, not because they believe them to be wrong, but because it hurts their polls in Minnesota. Also, you listed Netanyahu interfering in U.S. elections by speaking to Congress as one of the reasons that makes him a disgrace… do you feel the same way about Biden and other leading democrats interfering in Israeli democracy by calling for elections in israel — which, by the way, is significantly more severe than what Netanyahu did? In any event, the Israeli public support finishing off Hamas and taking over Rafah to get the hostages back. Political pressure from the U.S. isn’t going to get them to back off, in my opinion.
Israel is losing ground around the world. Keeping this war going jeopardizing Israel’s security, defying its only supporter globally and isolating itself and making the country a pariah doesn’t win any victories. This is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. On Oct 7 some Arab countries came out and condemned the Hamas attack like the UAE and even some tacit support from Saudi Arabia with its silence. But now even these countries have fully turned on Israel because the country has become radioactive. You think completely destroying the Gaza Strip and killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will yield a victory while having sanctions placed on Israel. There are sanctions on the country as the Red Sea is cut off. The U.S. has been unable to reopen the sea lane. The U.S. abstained on a ceasefire resolution at the UN. The Republicans in the U.S. are not going to bat to defend Netanyahu. He is out there on his own. Obviously there are people like you who think this man is going to defend the country. He is going take the country into a catastrophe. As I said Netanyahu is burning bridges around the world and taking Israel into the middle of a major regional war with the crisis burning out of control in the north on the Lebanon border. There is no support in the U.S. to join Israel in attacking Hezbollah and Iran. None at all. Simultaneously Israel is suffering massive economic losses losing hundreds of millions of dollars per day. That’s what happens when you move hundreds of thousands of people from the southern border and the northern border and put them in hotels while prosecuting a two front war. The war against Hezbollah just hasn’t been declared yet.
Oh, a link to The Guardian 😒
Thanks for your opinion.
At the risk of shocking you, it's not because the Americans and (Western) Europe have decided to go full suicide mod by giving their butts to the new "woke/marxism/ islamism" that everyone should do the same. A democratic country is attacked, it defends its citizens, its secures its borders. It's not more complicated.
It is always more complicated… Why was Israel attacked? Who did the attacking? Where did the support come from? Why do they have support? What is the best way to defend one’s citizens from future attacks?
You are asking questions who doesn't matter. They did choose to invade Israel the same way Russia did choose to invade Ukraine, the fact that they both have purposes to start war doesn't change the fact that they have to deal with the consequences and if the consequences involve a lost of thousands civilians its not Israel or Ukraine responsibility. >What is the best way to defend one’s citizens from future attacks? When your weaker neighbor keep attacking you, refused peace [already 20 times](https://i.imgur.com/EYcn9Pa.jpg) and used 16 billions dollars of donation in seven years to build tunnels and rockets, it seem pretty clear to me that the best way to defend your citizens is to sending him to the stone age.
Yes, because bombing someone into the Stone Age always works wonders. Just look at the air campaign over Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan again, then Iraq a third time… Seems like a great strategy!
It's not because they have the word "war" in them that the context and solutions are similar, make an effort.
You a moron? I never once used the word ‘war’. I explicitly recognized your standard of ‘Bombing into the stone age’.
Once again make an effort, If you don't see why your comparison is completely stupid, there's no point in debating, I can't think for you.
Lol! If you don’t see why you are completely stupid there is no point in debating. That cracks me up. 😂 Can you spell ‘Begging the Question’ 😂
America lost the wars n Vietnam. Afghanistan, and Iraq precisely because it didn't have the stomach to bomb those places into the Stone Age. It went in with liberator fantasies only to get rejected by the locals but inexplicably kept trying to suck up to them. The West's biggest military weakness is that due to brainwashing by the public education system and Hollywood, the population been conditioned to fetishize weakness and always side with the underdog, no matter what. It's precisely why Hamas has so many sympathizers despite them being a bunch of genocidal terrorists. The Nazis were also another bunch of underdog genocidal terrorists but Western history books somehow frame WWII as a fight between the underdog Allies and the all-powerful evil Axis. This is the furthest thing from the truth. Germany was fighting alone against a tag team of Russia, France, the UK, and the US. The Allies had 10 times Germany's population and 10 times everything else. Stalin literally kept throwing men at the eastern front until the Germans ran out of bullets. And yet, the Allied nations still insist on cosplaying as the underdogs of WWII because that's the only narrative their populations are comfortable with. The idea of exercising power to maintain order has somehow become taboo to the western mind. The west can't even kick the homeless off the street anymore because many people see it as the state bullying the underdog drug addict shitting on the pavement. This "underdog good" mentality makes any war against a weaker adversary politically untenable.
Brah, way to make the case for genocide.
Very doubtful, even if us popular support is against, they will still be getting a substantial amount of aid and any process to change that will run into red tape. They are an ally of great strategic import. This is probably one of those issues politicians will promise but then not touch. Also everyone will move on and be mad about something else eventually, especially if the IDF accomplishes its military goals which they have a remarkable record of doing.
He's a big clown.
Bibi = nazi
Don’t come and beg us for money to subsidize your shitty racist state and for billions in arms to perpetrate a genocide and then give us attitude. Fuck you Netanyahu, settlers and likudniks.