PeterMP

Israel has been pretty consistent in saying they won't agree to any cease fire that is permanent because it would prevent the destruction of Hamas. Hamas has been pretty consistent in saying that the release of all the remaining living hostages would have to be the result of a permanent cease fire. The difference essentially makes any further cease fire impossible.

I'm not sure this applies in this case. The implied assumption is that the one with the superior military doesn't already want to annihilate the other side. (This didn't start on Oct. 7.) If the side with the superior military already seems set on annihilation, then what?

Gaza doesn't border the Jordan river. The West Bank does. Gaza is on the Mediterranian.

The issue of Arab oil money coming into the US is a broader issue that the government (Congress) should address. Of course they won't.

Why does it appear to be well funded? It isn't like they are running tv or radio commercials or buying billboard space to support their protests (that I've seen). They're literally sleeping outside for free in tents. Different protestors support different things. The state of Israel has people in their government communicating different things (some have said they want to see Palestinians removed from Gaza), and the problem is a bunch of college protestors from different universities don't agree on everything?

I don't think the idea that the best workers got promoted was ever true. https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you With respect to the idea of quiet quitting, I think there are 2 things. There are people that are doing the bare minimum at work or that have an independent/entrepreneural (that doesn't actually pay the bills) side hustle and that seems to be their focus even at work. And those people are frustrating. Then I think for a lot of jobs changes in technology have created a situation where the job has creeped into all sorts of hours and times to the point that you're never off. And I think some people are pushing back against those sorts of things. That I don't have a problem with. (And really companies should be helping with that. Burning out your employees is real and doesn't do anybody any good.)

I'm going to put this here. I think Hubberman would deny he's anti-vaccine, but I think the label might apply. "The misleading information in one of America’s most popular podcasts The Huberman Lab has credentials and millions of fans, but it sometimes oversteps medical fact." https://www.vox.com/technology/24127540/huberman-lab-science-misleading-information-andrew-huberman-podcasts-joe-rogan-health-medicine I think this is a more general issue for people that end up in a for profit science communication. It isn't really feasible to put together a regular podcast/tv show, etc. in a specific field of science (even if we broadly call human health) that will be of general interest on a regular basis. Science doesn't move that fast. We don't learn new things that are of general interest and very significant to have a regular podcast on it. If you go back to the old model, magazines like Discover report(ed) on things all across science and have/had a staff to do it.

The way they get better is to get lucky and find a young player that the rest of the league has undervalued. And they need to get lucky and stay healthy. The problem is if they trade, the teams taking their players are taking them because they plan to be good, so you are taking back picks that aren't very good, making it hard to get good. Meanwhile, your not good and so drafting in the lottery, but those picks are going to the Pelicans or Portland. For example, the Sixers actually have a ton of cap space. They could trade picks for Giannis and not send any salary to Milwaukee. Milwaukee pretty much instantly becomes a lottery team. Meanwhile unless there is some catastrophe for at least the next few year Embiid, Maxey, and Gannis are at least a playoff team. The Pelicans and Portland are getting lottery picks from Milwaukee while Milwaukee is getting late first round picks from the Sixers. That would just be dumb. I guess if somehow trading Giannis and Lillard allowed them to get their picks back from the Pelicans and Portland that might make some sense. But I don't see why NOP or Portland would do that. (Now, what they should do that teams like that tend to be bad at doing is they should not emphasize a high seed. They need to find (some) young player(s) that they think can be reasonable rotational pieces and actually give them regular minutes during the regular season. And yes, you might lose some games but getting younger and lucky with the development of a young player would go along way to helping them win a championship.)

Unless they are going to somehow trade him and bring back another win now player makes the better/more likely to stay healthy that doesn't make sense. But I can't see how/who would give up such a player. They don't own any of their own 1st round picks out right until after 2030. Every 1st round pick either belongs to somebody else or is subject to swap. The Sixers on the other hand should absolutely look at moving Embiid (and Maxey).

I'll address this because @tshile essentially said before that he thought I was wrong for having a little hope that it is true (not quite his words but the general idea of his words). I think there is some chance that it is true (at some level). It is somewhat consistent with the new charter put out in 2008 and some agreements that they have with Fatah. So it is something that was out there before the latest attack and latest western pressure. I don't think that's something that's winning them support with their base. The "destroy Israel" interview that @Skins24 posted was the red meat for their base (an interview in Arabic on Lebanese tv). So I don't think they are doing it because it makes them more popular at "home". So why have they now for about 20 years putting out that they'd support a Palestinian state along the '67 borders? It hasn't stopped Israeli plans/expansion. Israel hasn't seemed to change or care one iota. It didn't cause the west to treat them better. (We didn't take them off the terrorist watch list or lift any sanctions against them for doing it.) We don't seem have cared at all. If there was any benefit for Hamas in putting that idea out there, I don't know what it has been. It seems somewhat possible it is because at least some people in the organization support that idea. (Now a few things: 1. It is possible they are lying and sometimes people lie for reasons that aren't very reasonable or very logical. It is possible that they've lied for some reason that doesn't make much sense. 2. It is possible (and I'd argue even likely) not everybody in Hamas agrees on what their goals should be. It is possible that some people would settle for a country based on the '67 borders and some wouldn't and would continue to attack. It is possible that their would be some sort of organizational split if Israel agreed to a country based on the '67 borders. Going back to the IRA, similar things happened at different times with the IRA. And certainly some Palestinians would continue to attack Israel. Organizations like Palestinian Islamic Jihad's officially stated objectives are still destroy Israel and kill the Jews, so if "Hamas" made peace with Israel the more militant people associated with Hamas would have already existing organizations that they could join if they didn't keep the Hamas name itself.) Arafat kept power after the PLO then becoming the PA made peace with Israel and recognized Israel. Yes he lost support (including losing Gaza to Hamas). But that's more an indication of the general situation than any real entity where enough people don't want peace. But he also kept a lot of power and some sense gained more by gaining international acceptance. I don't know, but it is possible he ended up better off. You'd hope the same can/could be true. (Which then ties into my other post, if they would lose support for making an agreement based on the '67 borders, then aren't they losing support for suggesting they would? And then why are they doing it? Because just suggesting they would isn't getting them international recognition.)

(The same guy in the same interview and in others also said the death of civilians during the attack was a mistake. He's also made the same claim in other interviews.) In an interview with the NYT, representatives said it was done to bring the Palestinian situation back to the world's attention. https://nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html (This is consistent with derailing the peace negotiations between Israel in the other countries in the region.) On the day of the attack, Hamas released an audio tape of the guy that is considered their military expert and he cited a number of things, including the blockade of Gaza, things happening at the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is what they've named the attack after) (where Israel has been doing more shutting down access to Muslims so that Jews can pray at the Temple Mount), attacks and killings of Palestinians by Israel and settlers, and that Israel wouldn't participate in any prisoner exchanges. https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/90836 Another Hamas leader said they'd lay down their arms for the creation of a Palestinian state along the '67 borders. https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438

I would say we have no real allies in the Middle East. I guess if phrased it as that Israel is our best ally in the Middle East, I might agree. Not like other countries. We give them more aid than any other country. And it isn't close. And then we give a bunch of aid to Egypt which we're doing for Isreal. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-military-aid-does-the-us-give-to-israel/

There were numerous IRA attacks through the decades that you could look at and say if they were interested in a political solution they wouldn't have done them. But in the end, the IRA was part of a political solution. The PLO has a history of attacks and today it has morphed into the PA and lead by a man that nobody doubts supports a nonviolent solution the Israeli/Palestinian situation. I don't consider Israel a real ally (I can go through the history if you want). Also, I don't see not giving the aid as walking away from them. We don't just give most of our other allies huge amounts of military aid. We often sell them weapons and things, but we don't just give them things like we have Israel. Places like Japan and S. Korea pay to help offset troops stationed there. Things like that. They can be ally and we can include them in our defense umbrella in a manner that is more consistent with our other allies and not just give them huge amounts of aid. Also, the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza aren't really comparable. Ukraine is pretty literally likely fighting for its existence. Hamas can't destroy Israel. The effect of cutting off aid to Israel and the Ukraine aren't comparable and that has to be considered. (With all that said, I don't think we should just cut off aid. I think aid should come with conditions (e.g. freezing settlements into the future for some period of time, etc.)

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post before. I had to switch things. From my perspective, it would be useful to know in what way I'm extending them the benefit of the doubt. I don't see myself extending them any real benefit of the doubt. (Admittedly, I also extend Israel very little to no benefit of the doubt.) You want to say that you think Hamas is a violent, anti-Semitic, terrorist, lying, POS, no good, organization and don't think they will ever be part of a successful peace process, I'm not really going to argue with you. (I think saying that there is no way that Hamas will ever be part of a successful peace process is too far. None of us know the future and similar terrorist organizations have changed in the past. But if you don't think/believe they can, I'm not going to disagree. And really, I think it is unlikely myself.)

I have expounded. That was your initial post. "Also, they pretty much are still calling for the elimination of Isreal. Basically, the big difference between the first and second charters is that instead of the elimination of all Jews, they'll just settle for Israel..." That statement isn't true. On one hand, I agree with this. On the other hand, we are the most powerful country in the world, and we can do great things if we get ourselves organized. Because of several things, including issues with our own electorate/political situation, I don't think there will be peace in the region (at least not in my life time). But I'm also not willing to tell people that they/we should just give up. *EDIT* Got my quoted posts mixed up. (For what it is worth, I don't think you are an Israeli apologist. I think you do focus to much on the latest attack.)