Israel should accept the deal on the condition that before it becomes operational, the U.S will deliver to it the corpses of the top 500 Hamas leaders.
Crucial is Paul's point that if you launch a war and lose, you should expect to lose some territory, especially if your war aim is to take all of the territory of the nation you attacked. What the Ivy children don't seem to know is that this is how Israel came into possession of ALL the occupied (or in Gaza's case, not quite occupied) territory.
How can people like Ignatius (Who is not especially anti-Israel and not a hard leftist) continue to believe things like this? Why does he think the survival of Hamas in power is even a possibility at this point? How can Ignatius refer to "both sides" as if Hamas is a legitimate "side"? I honestly don't get it.
I dont think David Ignatius actually supports Hamas. I think his framing of thr conflict as a right wing Denial of Palestinian aspirations is something so clearly false yet something they can't get past.
When you're pushing a deal that will, and is explicitly designed to, keep Hamas going, you're supporting Hamas. Everything else is a fancy-dance diversion.
Gaza should be demilitarized and depopulated. There are 22 Arab nations with millions of square miles of available territory to resettle the residents of Gaza.
Israel should accept the deal on the condition that before it becomes operational, the U.S will deliver to it the corpses of the top 500 Hamas leaders.
Crucial is Paul's point that if you launch a war and lose, you should expect to lose some territory, especially if your war aim is to take all of the territory of the nation you attacked. What the Ivy children don't seem to know is that this is how Israel came into possession of ALL the occupied (or in Gaza's case, not quite occupied) territory.
How can people like Ignatius (Who is not especially anti-Israel and not a hard leftist) continue to believe things like this? Why does he think the survival of Hamas in power is even a possibility at this point? How can Ignatius refer to "both sides" as if Hamas is a legitimate "side"? I honestly don't get it.
Because the people pretending to oppose Hamas are lying.
I dont think David Ignatius actually supports Hamas. I think his framing of thr conflict as a right wing Denial of Palestinian aspirations is something so clearly false yet something they can't get past.
When you're pushing a deal that will, and is explicitly designed to, keep Hamas going, you're supporting Hamas. Everything else is a fancy-dance diversion.
Gaza should be demilitarized and depopulated. There are 22 Arab nations with millions of square miles of available territory to resettle the residents of Gaza.
The hyperlink embedded in "Israel’s move to create a buffer zone" is not correct.
Sorry about that and thanks for pointing the error out.
I fixed it, so if you go the our main page you can now find the correct link.
Thanks and thanks for your superb commentary.