Subject: Re: Hmmmm
But I must point out that the Biden admin could have been far more supportive of that objective than they were, but they had a pro-Hamas constituency to appease. How's that working out?

Am I pro-Hamas because I loathe civilian casualties??

There is a very tiny slice of the population that is "pro-Hamas". That constituency is so small that it is negligible. I believe the administration was very supportive (and still is) of destroying Hamas. They are not supportive of the wholesale slaughter of civilians. As albaby and I are discussing, there is little choice given the history of atrocities and illegal acts (by both sides at different points in the past 70+ years). Bibi has made it clear that he doesn't give a rip. He's only holding back (a little) because of international concerns about civilians. But he doesn't care.

The two-state solution was potentially viable. But the PM that negotiated it was killed by a fellow Israeli, which pretty much put a halt to that plan. Then Israelis take Palestinian homes and land, don't let Palestinians build or farm on their own land, and some element of Palestinians blow up pizza parlors and fire off a few rockets or mortars...and (as of last October) kill and kidnap Israeli civilians. As I said, both are wrong. But that is the history, and it can't be changed. Looking at the European/American example, the realistic outcome is the annihilation of the Palestinians. In which case, don't pretend. Just do it. This death by a thousand cuts is cruel. Apartheid (which we had before last October) isn't workable. Either be the "bigger man" and disengage (and accept that you will be attacked occasionally**), or finish what you started.



**I'm still pondering Israel turning its firepower against Iranian military and governmental assets. Iran is funding much of this. Perhaps it would be wiser to kill their theocratic leaders and let the Iranians vote for the secular government they appear to desire, than to continue to bomb schools and hospitals in Gaza.