placeholder

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

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.

Thanks for your careful non-analysis. It is to laugh.

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.