placeholder

The article in question isn't about a report gathering information from various sources and weighing evidence. This is about interviews with 4 senior IDF commanders. So, I believe that when the Times says it interviewed 4 senior IDF commanders, it did interview 4 senior IDF commanders. And when it reports their opinions I believe that their opinions are being reported accurately.

You doubted the NY Times report. I called you on it. Just continuing your denialism when it comes to the war in Gaza.

I guess sharing the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times. You seriously believe that reporters for the Times are making this up?

More blathering.

Except that people tend to use their homes as sources for retirement income. Especially if they need the money. They tend to downsize.

You don't seem to have a problem with the way the Trump administration increased deficit spending. Nor the way they defended it by claiming that increased revenues due to the stimulatory effect of tax cuts meant that that said cuts would pay for themselves. A consistently falsified claim that emerged in the Reagan era. As for your nonsensical conspiracy theory...well actually I guess that says it all. Pretty much all you ever offer is conspiracy theories. With you there's a definite deficit when it comes to facts and data.

So, if the economy continues to improve, employment remaining low, inflation declining, and real wages rising, does the buck stop at Biden's desk for that, too?

As for me not knowing the man, his family etc...your point is truly bizarre. It wasn't me but rather you making guesses about his judgement based on his personal circumstances. Your reproach is obviously better directed at yourself. Also, as I pointed out, Eisenkot's opinion was hardly his alone. Did you skip over the part about senior IDF commanders agreeing with him? Has grieving over the death of Eisenkot's son skewed their thinking too? And if you read my comment with just a little bit of care, you will see that I didn't assign emotionalism at all to the formulators of the strategy: "As for the strategy, a likely explanation for this is that the Israeli War Cabinet, whose plan this is, has decided that freeing the hostages is less important than eradicating or crippling Hamas. And I suppose a rational case could be made to support that strategy." As for grief and rage making Israelis susceptible to believing that such a plan would be effective...it's clear that's what most Israelis have been feeling. I've already posted data about the awful things said about Arabs enjoying much popularity in Israel. And the awful and mostly unpunished violence waged against them. I don't see how otherwise, in the absence of said grief and rage, someone can believe that both waging total warfare and rescue of the hostages are reconcilable. In support of my thesis I should note, that with the passage of time as the outrage in Israel ebbs, rationality about this issue seems to be on the rise again as evidenced by the growing Israeli opposition to the government's approach to restoring the hostages to Israel.

I know what you mean. It's absolutely disgraceful how in 2023 those revisions were for the first 11 months. You should pay special attention to the disgrace in the October figures. Shocking! https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf And thank you for all the careful research you performed before pasting your claim.

What you referred to past questions about what strategy Israel should pursue in the war. Those questions were not about the hostages about how Israel should prosecute the war with respect to the hostages.. Of course, if you're dropping 2000+ lb bombs, it's more likely that collateral damage will also have an impact - a literal one - on the hostages. Also, there are a few people I just don't bother to reply to at all anymore. As for your previous suggestion and cheap shot that Eisenkot's stance on the hostage issue might have something to do with the death of his son, he's hardly alone. Report: Top IDF commanders believe freeing hostages not compatible with goal of destroying Hamas Senior Israel Defense Force commanders now believe that Israel’s two stated goals of destroying Hamas and freeing the hostages are not compatible, The New York Times reports. Four senior commanders, speaking on condition of anonymity, tell the Times that “the dual objectives of freeing the hostages and destroying Hamas are now mutually incompatible.” The report says it has reviewed Israeli battle plans from the start of the war and that the IDF is currently in control of a smaller part of the Strip than originally envisioned. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-top-idf-commanders-believe-freeing-hostages-not-compatible-with-goal-of-destroying-hamas/ This always seemed so blatantly obvious that I marvel at the belief of some that total war is a viable approach to freeing the hostages.. I can only posit that people consumed with grief and rage probably aren't thinking too clearly about subscribing to this plan. As for the strategy, a likely explanation for this is that the Israeli War Cabinet, whose plan this is, has decided that freeing the hostages is less important than eradicating or crippling Hamas. And I suppose a rational case could be made to support that strategy.

Given that the US among others had repeatedly pushed for a more targeted approach, and that this was hardly secret, I often told those who asked me to consult the US govt's opinion. And then ignored those who still asked because the answer was obvious. And still is. You really think that question is a stumper? You just told me that this issue had been discussed and now you're telling me that at least Eisenkot's current opinion wasn't? A tingling sensation tells me that you're going to characterize this as nitpicking rather than acknowledging a stumble on your part.

Then why did you introduce the UK into the topic? What made you believe it was relevant?

What else can I assume from your comment. I never mentioned the UK so why would you think bringing up the UK was relevant if you didn't believe that the UK was the only nation with a parliamentary form of government?

Nor did I claim that they were. Or do you believe that the UK is the sole nation with a parliamentary system of government? Or perhaps you can share with us what debates previous Presidents engaged in apart from election debates? How about the previous occupant of the office? Or the one before him?

True or not, I don't see how that undermines the validity of the case. But, given the weak nature of her defense, invoking racism as the reason for the accusation, rather than denying their accuracy, it doesn't look so good for her.

I got news for you. Presidents aren't the same as Prime Ministers. The US doesn't have a parliamentary form of government. So Presidents don't really have the occasion to engage in debates in the course of their duties.

Are you trying to make a liar out of Morch? Not so long ago he told me in no uncertain terms that the information I posted had already been extensively discussed. Yet here you are apparently entirely ignorant of this. Well, given that you clearly ignored what I posted, it may be that Morch's claim is true and that you ignored the subject back then too. I do suggest that you go back and read the 2 articles I linked to. Or at least read the 3 sentences from each one that I posted. One of them links to an article in which the ex Chief of Staff of the Israeli military and current observer to the Israeli war cabinet said: “we should say bravely that it is impossible to return the hostages alive in the near future without an agreement [with Hamas]”. Eisenkot said Israel should consider halting the fighting for a “significant” period of time as part of any such deal.

Just don't say that there's no solution to the Hamas issue because then you'll be accused of supporting terrorists.

What don't you understand about the fact that views are changing. As long as the economy continues on its current upward track, voter's view of the economy will continue to ameloriate. If that's the case come November, it will help the incumbent.

I think it's most accurate to call you a broadband denialist. When the data doesn't comport with your biases, that means the data is wrong. You've got nothing.

Well, this thread is about Netanyahu rejecting the US push for a Palestinian state. And even before the October 7 massacre, support for it wasn't a real popular position among Israelis Israelis have grown more skeptical of a two-state solution Following recent violence in the West Bank, some experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict have expressed concern that the prospects for a two-state solution are fading... Only 35% of Israelis think “a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully,” according to the survey, which was conducted in March and April, prior to the latest violence in the West Bank. That represents a decline of 9 percentage points since 2017 and 15 points since 2013. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/

Well, it doesn't seem to have had any effect at all on Bkk Brian's rather strident take on the of situation.

Nostalgic much? Pining for the good old days of October 2023?

On the other hand From the start of this war, I've wondered how exactly waging this war will bring the hostages home. Well, at least home alive. Seems I'm not alone in this: In Strategic Bind, Israel Weighs Freeing Hostages Against Destroying Hamas After more than 100 days of war, Israel’s limited progress in dismantling Hamas has raised doubts within the military’s high command about the near-term feasibility of achieving the country’s principal wartime objectives: eradicating Hamas and also liberating the Israeli hostages still in Gaza. Israel has established control over a smaller part of Gaza at this point in the war than it originally envisaged in battle plans from the start of the invasion, which were reviewed by The New York Times. That slower than expected pace has led some commanders to privately express their frustrations over the civilian government’s strategy for Gaza, and led them to conclude that the freedom of more than 100 Israeli hostages still in Gaza can be secured only through diplomatic rather than military means. https://archive.ph/zc8tC https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/20/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-hostages-strategy.html Split in Israel’s war leadership breaks into the open A sharp divide in Israel’s war leadership has broken into the open after former military chief Gadi Eisenkot called for elections within months and said the government was not being truthful with the public about its offensive against Hamas. A blunt television interview, in which Eisenkot also declined to say that he trusted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, marked a widening split over key questions such as how to secure the return of hostages held by the Palestinian militant group and planning for after the war... As well as echoing a call from the opposition for snap elections, he added in the interview, which was recorded over recent weeks, that “we should say bravely that it is impossible to return the hostages alive in the near future without an agreement [with Hamas]”. https://archive.ph/RQYzX https://www.ft.com/content/e1a54af7-2ee7-416c-af2b-e4af42621556

On the other hand, given the trend, backers of Israel shouldn't be encouraged by the trend.