placeholder

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

If it was coming only from those folks you might have a point. But that's not the case, so you don't.

You're kind of reasoning makes any discussion of history or relevant. Who knows? Maybe next we'll find out that Hitler and Stalin really didn't partition Poland. Or were justified in doing so. Well you're pushing is just a kind of nihilism.

He had no answer for the fact that as part of the 2nd Minsk Agreement all foreign forces were to withdraw from Ukraine. Russia said that provision wasn't applicable to them since they had no troops in Ukraine. Laughable.

Can you share with us where I stated or linked to an article that claimed that an increase of 0.05 affects the kidneys?

If you actually did know the history, you wouldn't have accepted Putin's twisted version of it.

Also, anincrease in kidney disease as high heat grows more prevalent https://time.com/6303020/chronic-kidney-disease-climate-change/

What makes the denialism of this fact remarkable is that the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was first proven by the Great Irish Physicist John Tindall in the 19th century.

0 as you clearly don't understand, the person in question was introduced to the Canadian Parliament as Ukrainian war hero. That's when he got applauded. It was only later discovered that he was in fact a Nazi partisan. And I wasn't aware that Putin had ever directed his comments at elderly emigrants who now live in Canada.

Yes it is clear. As far as Florida is concerned, consensus now is that hurricanes, while fewer, are stronger, develop more quickly, drop more precipitation and last longer. Also, sea level rise means flooding in Florida even in the absence of storms.

Sure. You started out with this "Yeah, better not watch, in case you start asking the wrong questions. Can't have that. Be efficient and pot plants until the MSNBC fact show comes on!. 555" And ended up with this: "I expect that certain agreements had to be made in advance to get the appointment in the first place. If any of those had been broken then there would probably have been no interview aired at all." From 'wrong questions' to "I expect that certain agreements had to be made in advance to get the appointment in the first place." It is to laugh.

Big deal. This is just the kind of nonsense to be expected from Putin. Canada’s parliament, Trudeau and Zelensky give inadvertent ovation to Nazi war veteran The speaker of Canada’s House of Commons apologized Sunday for recognizing a man who fought in a Nazi military unit during World War II... “In my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery. I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so,” Rota said in a statement. https://www.timesofisrael.com/canadas-parliament-trudeau-and-zelensky-give-inadvertent-ovation-to-nazi-war-veteran/