placeholder

Thanks for either avoiding or not understanding the issue. The question isn't whether those fears were discussed earlier, but how have recent events affected those fears.

The subject of this thread is the Israeli assault on Rafah. It was launched yesterday at 6:47 AM Nowhere in htis has this issue been discussed & settled. Apparently, you believe that whatever conclusions you reached elsewhere are somehow dispositive.

To the point of denial of reality. Let's take them one by one 1) Egypt doesn't really believe this:. It's undeniable that that the Israeli assault on Rafah will create huge pressure on the refugees to flee. So where are they going to go? Back North through a war zone? Why wouldn't Egypt believe a Palestinian cross-border incursion is a very strong and credible possibility? As for Israel no longer trying to do get Egypt to let the Palestinians in ... as I'm sure you're aware, Israel has been pressuring Egypt to let it take over security on the southern border of Gaza. Egypt is seriously unhappy about that. Is it unreasonable for the Egyptians won't suspect that Israel has a lot less stake in keeping the border non-porous heading south than does Egypt? Put this under the heading of More Than One Way to Skin a Cat. 2)It's Hamas' fault: The all purpose justification. This of course depends on the belief that the strategy and tactics that Israel is employing are necessary. The US certainly is increasingly unhappy with the way Israel has prosecuted this war. 3) Reversibility. Why wouldn't the Israelis wouldn't use Facts On The Ground to their advantage? That it wouldn't find reasons not to let the Palestinians back in?

Do ya think their fears have gotten stronger, stayed the same, or gotten weaker since Israel announced its intentions to stage in a major operation in Rafah?

You want some more encouraging news? Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189

Another reflexive counter argument. What is news is that Israel is apparently planning to launch a major assault on Rafah where roughly 1.45 million Palestinians have sought refuge. You think that's irrelevant to Egypt's fear about Mass cross-border immigration? That it doesn't change the odds?

We've had some posters here scoffing at the notion that one of Israel's goals in this war is to drastically lower the Palestinian population of Gaza. I think at this point a good argument could be made that Israel has been gaslighting about its intentions. And it looks like Egypt is at least open to that argument: Egypt Warily Eyes Gaza as War Builds Pressure on Its Border Egypt has reinforced its frontier with Gaza and warned Israel that any move that would send Gazans spilling into Egyptian territory could jeopardize their decades-old peace treaty. https://archive.ph/uMDBP https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/10/world/middleeast/egypt-gaza-israel-war.html I anticipate a few counterarguments: 1)The mindreading argument: Egypt doesn't really believe this. It's just for public consumption 2) It's Hamas' fault: If Hamas surrendered, there would be no need to force Palestinians into Egypt. 3)Reversibility: Even if these refugees do flee across the border, that doesn't mean that Israel won't let them back in. Keep in mind that during the early part of of the war, Israel actually negotiated with Egypt to allow refugees from Gaza to cross into Egypt. Egypt refused.

From the article: "The period from February 2023 to January 2024 saw a warming of 1.52°C, as reported by the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service, underscoring the urgency for immediate action to curb emissions and address climate change."

I'm assuming your first link is to some system that removes CO2 from the air (the link connects to nothing). I don't see how it can be about removing it from the world unless it's sending it to outer space. And I still have no idea why you mentioned that human beings contain carbon. I didn't say your dinosaur link was false. In fact it affirms the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. But what you don't seem to understand is the concept of rates. It took millions of years for the climate to get that hot. The rate of temperature increase is much faster now thanks to the release of CO2 into the atmosphere due to human activities. As for deaths caused by heat vs cold. First off, that addresses pathology. Increased droughts and increasing natural disasters don't enter into that tally. What's more, that list doesn't include deaths from chronic kidney disease (CKDu) which is rising rapidly as heat rises.

His concern for Americans is as touching as is mine for the dupes who buy into his sincerity.

There's only one Western leader we know he danced rings around. He got that one to see he believed Putin rather than his own intelligence services.

The topic is about reservations subsequent to the Israeli report. Nothing in it about reservations previous to that report. All you have to do to prove me wrong is point out where in the OP, previous reservations are referenced. Good luck with that. Whatever the case may be about previous pressure, what is speculative is that serious pressure will make a difference. Yes, My comments were addressed by you. And, as I pointed out, poorly. Whether or not you recognized the validity of the analogy, I made a literal explanation for you. And lead by example? You think this is some kind of feel good Hollywood tale?

Well, I'll address this point, too. If Hamas (and other terrorist groups) is defunct or gravely weakened, then there is no problem. So either way, what's the point?

Also, I "chopped up" your post because I was only addressing one point that you raised. If you think I've altered the meaning of what you posted, take it up with the mods.

Well, comparatively, restrictions in the West Bank were less onerous than those in Gaza. So "easing of restrictions" is setting a very low bar. As for the West Bank vs Gaza. Israel engaged in surreptitiously helping to prop up the Gazan economy so as not to make Hamas look bad in comparison to the economy in the West Bank. You think Israel wants the West Bank Palestinians to see how an economy can flourish in the absence of the kind of harsh restrictions that Israel still imposes on West Bank Palestinians?

As we know, at least in the case of Qatar, its government was giving $30 million per month to Qataris. If you include that not insubstantial contribution, Qatar comes in 2nd place.

1)There is nothing in that article about any reservations countries might have had previous to the Israeli report. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. So your claim that a change might move the previously reluctant to donate (or increase donations) has no basis in this article. So your suggestion that I go back and read the article is pointless. 2)Whether they weren't seriously pressured or whether even if serious pressure would result in any change, is highly speculative. 3)As I pointed out, and the article goes into more detail, it will be hugely difficult to accomplish this. And for what? It seems highly unlikely given that sentiments of the Gazans, that there wouldn't be some among those 13,000 employees who would also be terrorists. Does cost vs benefits mean anything to you? Of course, if Israel elminates the terrorist threat, or reduces it to near zero, then that problem is solved. And another deflection. Instead of addressing the validity of the analogy, you engage in more distraction. So let me put it in a way that's more congenial to the literal-minded: The salary of those officials, being relatively few in number is irrelevant to the fact that it would cost a lot more to pay replacement workers.

You sure of that? Israel would have economically opened up Gaza if not for Hamas? You know that for a fact? Israel helped prop up Hamas because it didn't want the PA to look better by comparison. You think if the people of the West Bank see that if Gaza were allowed to prosper under a system that allowed Gaza to prosper it would just exacerbate anger against the Israeli government given that there is no such likelihood of Israel allowing it for them?

1)What countries ever had a problem donating to the UNRWA before this Hamas issue came up? Got any candidates in mind? 2) Ought to be? That's your argument? There's "ought to be" and then there's reality. 3)Your comment about difficulty betrays no acknowledgement of degrees of difficulty and whether the result would even be worth it. As noted, the residents of Gaza overwhelmingly hate Israel and that's the workforce in place. All that effort to exclude what seems to be a small number of terrorists? Could it even succeed in doing that? 4)Your last point reminds me of people who say that those who advocate for higher taxes should voluntarily pay more. As though that was a solution to anything. Deflecting much?

I don't see you addressing the points I cited much less what's in the article.. And keep in mind that even in peacetime, Gaza depends on the UNRWA. And what would such a transition accomplish. I think hatred of Israel is pretty much universal in Gaza. It seems inevitable that some will be alliied with Hamas or other violent organizations.. Where are the workers for the relief agencies going to come from?

Hasen does note that Democrats are not likely to go for that. They are not as far gone as the Republicans Almost 3/4 of Republican House members voted to reject the election results. I doubt that the Democrats would come up with anything like that percentage.

Interesting article in the Times of Israel in which a UN official explains why replacing the UNRWA is unlikely to succeed. "With such a large number of local staff in a territory controlled by a terror organization, Hamas’s infiltration into the agency was inevitable, a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel. De Domenico notes that the salaries of the local UNRWA staffers are on a far lower pay scale than those received by employees recruited by other agencies, so switching to another agency would cost a lot more money, which donor countries are not likely interested in spending." https://www.timesofisrael.com/ That's a couple reasons right there. Others are addressed in the article.

What they are talking about is about lowering the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the short and medium run and ultimately reducing it. No one except possibly the delusional are talking about removing carbon from the world. How did you come up with this nonsense? It's not a matter of CO2 being bad or good. It's beneficial in greenhouses and indispensable in Coca-Cola. And while more may be better for some agricultural crops, not for all of them. And its effects aren't confined to agriculture, are they? Well, I'll say this for your final comment. You acknowledge the connection between higher CO2 levels and higher temperate and sea level. But you seem to believe that because natural causes led to this rise in the past, it can't be human caused now. That's demonstrably false.

It's amazing what people believe counts as evidence. 'Who cares about your claim that you" watched the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event that forced Russia to invade Ukraine." And even if so, maybe you should have listened to Mearsheimer more and watched those graduate students less. Do you even know what Mearsheimer bases his justification of Russia's action on? I doubt it.

Given that I was talking about a reversal of your opinion, it would hardly make sense to infer that it occurred in one post. Not that I wouldn't put it past you