placeholder

Well, that's not really about divide and conquer, though, is it? It may be reprehensible, but it's a different issue.

If that's the case why do you quote this to contradict? "I just posted a quote from 2019 proving that divide and conquer has always been Netanyahu's policy."

Well, I don't know if 11 years counts as a generation but still... "As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state." source

Given that it isn't ruled out, and that it could be the case, I'm not sure what you're driving at. Now, if I had claimed the same possibility for, say, Montenegro, you might have a better point.

I was commenting on a post by Brian BKK that said the soldiers are getting closer to the hostages. I asked if that's good or bad news for them. Why is that whataboutery?

Seems pretty clear to me. What's Hamas going to do with the hostages as Israeli troops draw closer?

Well, the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Proliferation, apparently the go-to organization when it comes to evaluating countries' nuclear weapons statuss, pretty much says that the state of Iran's nuclear stockpile is very uncertain, to say the least, now that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, can no longer monitor Iran's nuclear program. They could possibly create enough in a few weeks for 5 devices containing 16 kilos of fissile material each, or 11 devices containing 7 kilos each. Those latter devices would yield an explosion slightly smaller than the one created by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But even if Iran could create that much material, there's a lot more that goes into the making of a nuclear weapon The state of progress there is unclear, or, rather, opaque. https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable-weapon-potential

As Israeli forces draw closer, will this be something that will lengthen or shorten the life span of these hostages?

Let's get this straight. I posted a link to a NYT article about 4 senior IDF commanders who believe that the twin goals of defeating Hamas and liberating the hostages are irreconcilable. Bkk Brian posts an interview with Miri Eisen in which her interviewer specifically asks her about this article. She gives an answer which I maintain never actually addresses the question. You accuse me of acting unreasonably because Eisen didn't offer an answer I was looking for. I ask you to provide evidence that she did provide a relevant answer to that question. You accuse me of hijacking the thread when all I did was point out the Eisen's answer wasn't responsive. And from then on you repeatedly make all sort of generalizations generalizations about my posts. It's you who have hijacked this thread by making it about me rather than about the issue at hand. All you had to do was point out why I got it wrong about the relevance of Eisen's response. To date, you have offered nothing. But you have wasted a lot of pixels.

If the Iranians believe that the likelihood of a war waged against them by the US has risen, that would give them more of an incentive to enrich their stocks of uranium to the level where they can be used to create nuclear weapons. As Ukraine has learned, not having nuclear weapons can be a distinct disadvantage when facing a powerful foe.

Nitpicking much?

You're right. You're not the only person. Generally, though, they're the kind of folks who believe that a certain election was stolen or that global warming is a fake or the the government is faking statistics to make the current US administration look better. Instead of going on and on about my flaws, why not show where I got it wrong about what Eisin said. I asked you already. Why is that such a difficult or unreasonable request? As for dictating the issue at hand, BkkBrian inserted the interview with Eisin. I just pointed out she didn't respond saliently to the interviewer's question about whether the goals of saving the hostages and defeating Hamas were reconcilable. Where did I claim to speak for anyone but myself?

?????????????????????

The thing is, if she didn't have an answer why not say so instead of meandering? The issue was put straightforwardly enough by the interviewer.

Well, Since you're going on about my alleged modus operandi, let me take a moment to analyze yours..When you don't have facts to back you up, and you can't find the flaws in the reasoning of someone you disagree with you go for abuse instead. You make claims about past behavior which, whether accurate or not, would take a laborious amount of effort to counter. In other words, when you're cornered you take cheap shots. As for the issue at hand, which is what this thread should be about, if there is no clear answer, why didn't Eisin just say so? She doesn't. As I pointed out, her admonitions against negotiating with Hamas does not address the issue. Much of the rest of what she says is about Israel having to pay a terrible price. A ;price for what? She doesn't actually specify. But if you can point to where she does explicitly address the issue she was asked to comment on, please share it with the rest of us. Do you understand that she was being asked by the interviewer a specific question? All you need to do is note the exact minute and second where she does so. What could be simpler than that? As it is, I stand by my belief that she is clearly being evasive.

More evasion from you. Those 4 generals contended that the 2 goals of defeating Hamas and getting the hostages back are not compatible. Eisin did at length go on about not trusting Hamas and no deal with them should be attempted. What she never did was to address the issue of whether or not those 2 desired outcomes are mutually exclusive. What she offered were reasons not to negotiate with Hamas. That's a different issue. She never addressed how it is that Israel can accomplish both goals. No doubt that Eisin is a very accomplished person. Which makes it even more dubious, given her failure to explain how the desired outcome was possible, that either she or those Israelis in command of the war effort have an answer for it.

Actually, the Fed operates independently of the executive branch. It followed the usual course for battling inflation which is to raise interest rates. It's true that some on the left insisted they were overdoing it. As it turn out, most likely a correct objection since it's becoming increasingly clear that inflation, which is declining rapidly, was due to the economic disruption occasioned by the pandemic.

If you're referring to Hamas not allowing the Red Cross to visit the hostages, it's not at all clear that there ever was an agreement in place: "Mr. Netanyahu said that a deal brokered in late November to exchange hostages for Palestinian prisoners included a provision for the I.C.R.C. to visit all the remaining hostages held in the Gaza Strip, but that aspect of the deal was not confirmed by the other parties." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-hostages-red-cross-lawsuit.html And whatever the case there may be, as I pointed out, if Hamas didn't return the hostages, what would prevent Israel from resuming its campaign? And you didn't at all address the main point I raised: namely that Miri Eisen (thanks for the gratuitously hostile note identifying her) didn't exactly address in a focused way the issue of the irreconcilability of Israel's 2 goals in this war.

It's not so much a matter of disagreeing as there being so little of substance there to contend with. She's very evasive. Lots of meandering and generalizations and comments that don't really address the issue. She reiterates that Israel would have to pay a huge price for such a deal. And than claims that even if Israel did agree, Hamas wouldn't honor the deal. How does that even make sense? If Hamas didn't return the hostages what would stop Israel from starting up again? Who is this person?

To be fair, a thing I hate to be, there's an excellent article in The Atlantic by a reporter who covers the Israeli right and not from a favorable perspective. He claims convincingly, well, to me at least, that the statements from Israeli leaders, including those from Netanyahu and Gallant, purporting to be genocidal, were actually either mistranslations, the result of elisions or misunderstandings of which biblical passages are being alluded to. Here are links: https://archive.ph/GV14c https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/

There are two clear takeaways from this: 1 she shouldn't have appointed him 2 it doesn't take the case

I don't think categorizing where your opinions put you counts as a personal comment.

If you're referring to the official IDF reports you regularly relay here, allow me to point out that the IDF is an interested party to the conflict and claims it makes about the success of campaign are inherently suspect. I believe Morch made a point that somewhat deflated on of their claims. If it is the case that you believe the IDF reports assessing its progress, that just puts you deeper in the amen corner.

When you specifically address the points I raised in a rational rebuttal, I'll get back to you. What you wrote here is worthless.

But I did address it. As I pointed out, there's a huge difference between trying to get confirmation of events that occur in the field, especially in the case of an event like the one you cited, and an article that reports on interviews with 4 senior field commanders. Not a lot of room there for confusion and contradiction.