What should have israel done instead?


The real journalism here is that the NYT version of the story is about ~80 paragraphs long, and these details don’t appear until about paragraph 71. I wonder how many people read that far?

I don’t like how the article uses the word “capture” for the IDF taking civilians, as the Times uses “kidnap” when this happens in the other direction.

Also, there was an example yesterday of the Times revising a headline to go from “school bombed” to “former school bombed” to “ex-school bombed”

This is a long but quite excellent essay in the LRB.

If Biden’s trying to get Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire that returns all hostages, why are we also supporting and celebrating military operations like this that kill almost 300 Gazans for a handful of hostages?

It may be a more complex situation than that. As in, we helped locate and identify the hostages and their captors, but had no control over how the IDF used that info to effect a rescue.

Of course, one could also argue that we damn well knew how the IDF would do it, and still helped out, but even then, it seems impossible for the US to not provide help in locating hostages. It’s a nasty bind.


Blinken keeps claiming that Netanyahu has agreed to the ceasefire, presumably to keep the “this is on Hamas” narrative, despite the entire Israeli Government including Natanyahu loudly saying that they have not.

I don’t think that’s the reason. I think Biden is trying to railroad Bibi into a ceasefire.

Be nice if it works that’s for sure.

This interview discussed this:

What’s striking to me about the past few months is that the Israeli government keeps making clear publicly, sometimes almost embarrassingly so, the daylight between it and the United States. And it seems to have no effect on the Biden Administration’s policy or its rhetoric. Right now, for instance, we’re in a very strange situation: the U.S. is putting forward a ceasefire proposal that it says is Israel’s, and is claiming that everyone is just waiting on Hamas to agree to it. But it also seems unlikely that Israel actually supports this proposal. I can’t really think of a past situation like that.

President Biden came out and presented this as an Israeli proposal, which is not entirely false. It’s clear that the terms of this deal were approved by the Israeli security cabinet. But Netanyahu almost immediately came out and started casting doubt on that, specifically the part of the deal that would lead to a permanent ceasefire, which has been Hamas’s key demand since the very beginning. The far-right members of his coalition came out very soon after saying, unequivocally, no permanent ceasefire here—we oppose this. Members of Netanyahu’s own Likud Party have said the same thing. And yet the Biden Administration continues to say that only Hamas stands in the way of a ceasefire deal. That is plainly false.

Do you view what the Administration is doing in its public messaging as a political strategy? Or do you think that the game here is to convince Netanyahu to go along with this by saying that he already has?

The reason this sounds incoherent is because it is incoherent. The White House thought of this as a kind of a bold Hail Mary to get a ceasefire by trying to box in Netanyahu via making the deal public. Unfortunately, there was no “or else” in the President’s speech. And that’s something that’s been missing. They think they’re presenting Netanyahu with a tough political choice. Clearly, a majority of Israelis want this deal. The majority of the security establishment wants this deal. They know that a deal like this is the only way to get back the rest of the hostages.

But, unless you’re going to threaten Netanyahu with something real, he has shown repeatedly over many years that he can just delay and eventually wriggle his way out of the situation. The Biden Administration thought they were presenting him with a tough choice. They were mistaken, because they didn’t present any real downside, at least from Netanyahu’s perspective, if he essentially says no—or, more to the point, if he casts doubt on the terms of the deal, casts doubt on the idea that Israel would commit to a permanent ceasefire, and thus elicits a rejection from the other side. This is a tactic Netanyahu has used over and over again.

Doctor at U of T threatening Palestinian protesters with poor/negligent medical care:


It’s not clear to me that Matt Duss knows anything about it that we don’t also know.

Who could have predicted this ultra conservative would eventually start cutting ads for Trump

But I was told that Joe Biden did genocide

Withholding one shipment of 2000 pound bombs – six months into this – may be too much for Netanyahu but it isn’t enough to beat the genocide accusation

You know how to send the genocide guy a message? Electing a guy double and tripling down on the genocide! That’ll show 'em.

Maybe genocide works like integers in computing, and we just need some kind of genocide overflow, where at MAX_GENOCIDE it rolls back over to 0.

Well if you’re confused, you’re not alone. Biden could clear this up by halting all weapon shipments and stop supporting a politician and country that plow money into the Republican party.

If Israel decides to rekindle the Lebanese civil war, that should really be the definitive final straw for any right-thinking Western leader.