Israel vs Hamas (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Looks like the fight is on with Israeli soldiers and civilians amongst the dead already. Question becomes, how long before we get dragged into this?

Netanyahu says Israel is ‘at war’ after Hamas launches surprise attack, takes hostages | CNN

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the country was “at war” on Saturday, after Palestinian militants in Gaza fired a deadly barrage of rockets and sent gunmen into Israeli territory in a major escalation of the long running conflict between the two sides.

www.cnn.com

 

[DaveXA]

Israel is just pushing for WWIII. I get going after an Hamas leader, but to encroach on another country's sovereign land is just inviting retribution.

Not saying they weren't behind it, but, there apparently reports he was hit by a missle that originated inside Iran.

It wouldn't completely shock me as there definitely are political opponents from within the country. I haven't seen anyone actually claim responsibility yet tho.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Not saying they weren't behind it, but, there apparently reports he was hit by a missle that originated inside Iran.

It wouldn't completely shock me as there definitely are political opponents from within the country. I haven't seen anyone actually claim responsibility yet tho.

Nope. It was the IDF...

Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in Iran | CNN

Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh has been killed in Tehran. Follow for the latest news.

www.cnn.com

 

[Heathen]

I have a hard time seeing why anyone would seriously facepalm this post.

We all know that the United States government is purposefully evasive when talking about Gaza. We all know that the United States is funding Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

So to imply that the United States government officials can’t be trusted to answer simple questions that we all know the answer to because we see what’s going on is about the most reasonable conclusion we can arrive to.

Flaming that deduction doesn’t seem like an intelligent move.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I have a hard time seeing why anyone would seriously facepalm this post.

Thin skinned I see. Have you ever face palmed other people? Have any of them ever called you out for it like you just did?

 

[Heathen]

You do realize the State Department is directly accountable to the WH? The responses will usually be in lock-step with whoever is in the WH. That is true of this administration and was true of the previous one. It won't be any different when Trump is in the WH. If anything, Trump would be ever more supportive of Israel and he's never once hinted otherwise. Hell, he's probably applauding Bibi like many of the Republicans did when he spoke to Congress.

I think the majority of us understand that. That still doesn’t take away from the point that is being made, which is that the United States government can’t be trusted to tell the truth on Gaza - and that a lot of people still blindly believe what they hear out of Washington despite which administration is in.

I think truth is important about all else.

 

[Heathen]

Thin skinned I see. Have you ever face palmed other people? Have any of them ever called you out for it like you just did?

Well, now that you’re here why don’t you go ahead and explain why you (seem to) not agree that the US state department can’t be trusted to speak truthfully about Gaza?

Really interested to hear your view.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Really interested to hear your view.

Nah, you're alright.

 

[Heathen]

Nah, you're alright.

You got this.

 

[Heathen]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Well, now that you’re here why don’t you go ahead and explain why you (seem to) not agree that the US state department can’t be trusted to speak truthfully about Gaza?

Really interested to hear your view.

Is the State Dept. an independent agency responsible for setting US Policy or are they a tool for the head of the Executive Branch? The State Dept. cannot label an ally a criminal state without the approval of the WH, to do such would put the Sec State in serious legal jeopardy.

 

[DaveXA]

Is the State Dept. an independent agency responsible for setting US Policy or are they a tool for the head of the Executive Branch? The State Dept. cannot label an ally a criminal state without the approval of the WH, to do such would put the Sec State in serious legal jeopardy.

Precisely.

Ultimately, if you want the State Department to change their tune, it starts at the White House.

 

[Heathen]

Is the State Dept. an independent agency responsible for setting US Policy or are they a tool for the head of the Executive Branch? The State Dept. cannot label an ally a criminal state without the approval of the WH, to do such would put the Sec State in serious legal jeopardy.

You’re arguing protocol.

I’ve not once said that they can do anything different. No one is making that argument here.

What I am saying is that the statement that the US state department or government in general can’t be fully trusted is factual based on occurrences that date back to the founding of this country.

We can argue that someone may not like that idea. We can argue that someone shouldn’t take an absolute approach in that regard (not the approach I’m taking, but people seem to want a black-and-white box to put everyone in).

I’m simply saying on the issue of Gaza it’s a fact that the US government has claimed that they want one thing while doing the other. Over and over and over again. I haven’t seen anyone here argue that point, more so squabbles over semantics, and how things are said.

 

[Heathen]

Precisely.

Ultimately, if you want the State Department to change their tune, it starts at the White House.

I don’t expect the state department to change their tune. At least not in the near future - and we all know that Israel, being one of the most stringent US allies, isn’t going to fall off the radar in that regard anytime soon. Maybe ever.

Once more… That is not what anyone here is arguing. Not saying that you in particular are saying that, but it seems that there is some confusion over what’s being argued here.

It’s more a reflection on what’s going on and a disappointment in that. Maybe if these representatives just told the truth instead of made about face on caring about the people of Gaza and trying to reduce bloodshed, then there might be more respect because they’re actually being transparent about what they’re doing. Instead, they have only ramped up munitions to Israel - which Israel has used and continues to use this very second in obliterating Palestinians to take over Gaza as another Israeli illegal settlement. The goal posts continue to move.

Dave, I believe that a lot people in this country as Americans who have grown up to be proud of this country and what we hope to stand for our second by what we’re actually doing in many places in the world. This is so happens to be the latest and most gruesome example.

Both Democrats and Republicans will continue to chastise and belittle the younger generation and people who care about the lives in Gaza being lost to religious extremism and an insatiable greed for power. We’ve seen this attitude across American history. We saw it in protesting for the people of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of Vietnam…

I suppose all I’m trying to do here is paint a picture that the outrage over what’s happening is justified from both an American point of view and a citizen of the world point of view.

 

[Heathen]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I’m simply saying on the issue of Gaza it’s a fact that the US government has claimed that they want one thing while doing the other. Over and over and over again. I haven’t seen anyone here argue that point, more so squabbles over semantics, and how things are said.

If you would have started there, it would have come across as a more reasonable thought, but you specifically took exception the State Dept. non-answer response to the question of whether or not Israel committing war crimes. I pointed out that if they were to provide an answer in the affirmative or negative, that answer would be on the record as an official US policy and Constitutionally, that is not their call to make.

 

[Heathen]

If you would have started there, it would have come across as a more reasonable thought, but you specifically took exception the State Dept. non-answer response to the question of whether or not Israel committing war crimes.

Oh trust me - it’s much broader than a non-answer in one press conference. Surely you’ve kept up with Matthew Miller and others, correct? We can go through instance after instance, after instance of this representative, whoever they may be - clearly being evasive with the press. That is a matter of being an untruthful conduit. I’m not sure in what universe that isn’t the case.

if you waffle about war crimes in Gaza, but condemn them in Russia, it’s clear that there’s a bias and allegiance to protocol that transcends moral duty to the rest of humanity.

And I’ll repeat as many times as I need to - yes, I realize that these representatives have no other option if they want to keep their jobs. That does not mean that they will be free of scrutiny.

Why else would so much of the United States press have made this a big issue?

I pointed out that if they were to provide an answer in the affirmative or negative, that answer would be on the record as an official US policy and Constitutionally, that is not their call to make.

Once more, I am not arguing that the US state department’s press secretary, or anyone else is responsible for outlining policy verbatim. Can we get past that?

What I have said is that the US state department and government in general cannot be trusted and that much of what comes out of the WH spokesperson’s responses are clearly hypocritical. So where the matter of truth and untruth comes in is when these same individuals claim to care about the people of Gaza’s as well-being while providing much of the weaponry that kills them, for one example. Where they talk about Ukraine in these tragic and heartfelt statements and rhetoric, but adopt a clearly different (and likely rehearsed) rhetoric for some of the same things happening in Gaza.

If the United States truly felt that the lives of people in Gaza mattered, they wouldn’t be contributing to their deaths. But we both know this and it’s not a novel discovery.

I still don’t understand the problem that some people here seem to have with making the statement that in this way, that they cannot be trusted.

It’s as clear as day that the statement holds validity based upon the evidence.

 

[DaveXA]

Oh trust me - it’s much broader than a non-answer in one press conference. Surely you’ve kept up with Matthew Miller and others, correct? We can go through instance after instance, after instance of this representative, whoever they may be - clearly being evasive with the press. That is a matter of being an untruthful conduit. I’m not sure in what universe that isn’t the case.

if you waffle about war crimes in Gaza, but condemn them in Russia, it’s clear that there’s a bias and allegiance to protocol that transcends moral duty to the rest of humanity.

Why is any of this surprising though? This has been State Department SOP for both wars. They may not be consistent, but they're following US policies as laid out by the White House.

And I’ll repeat as many times as I need to - yes, I realize that these representatives have no other option if they want to keep their jobs. That does not mean that they will be free of scrutiny.

No one said they shouldn't be scrutinized. But again they're accountable first and foremost to the WH.

Why else would so much of the United States press have made this a big issue?

Well, that's the M.O. of the press. It's their job to raise issues where they think it should be raised.

Once more, I am not arguing that the US state department’s press secretary, or anyone else is responsible for outlining policy verbatim. Can we get past that?

What I have said is that the US state department and government in general cannot be trusted and that much of what comes out of the WH spokesperson’s responses are clearly hypocritical.

So what? They're still essentially an extension of the WH international policy directives. If you can't trust one, you can't trust the other because they essentially speak to the same policies.

So where the matter of truth and untruth comes in is when these same individuals claim to care about the people of Gaza’s as well-being while providing much of the weaponry that kills them, for one example. Where they talk about Ukraine in these tragic and heartfelt statements and rhetoric, but adopt a clearly different (and likely rehearsed) rhetoric for some of the same things happening in Gaza.

Again, that's nothing new or even unexpected.

If the United States truly felt that the lives of people in Gaza mattered, they wouldn’t be contributing to their deaths. But we both know this and it’s not a novel discovery.

Thats clearly your own opinion. The President doesn't believe he's contributing to their deaths. You can argue he's wrong in that, but that's what they believe.

I still don’t understand the problem that some people here seem to have with making the statement that in this way, that they cannot be trusted.

They can be trusted to carry out Biden’s foreign policies. The trust has to start at the WH.

It’s as clear as day that the statement holds validity based upon the evidence.

Some would say that's a matter of opinion.

 

[Heathen]

Why is any of this surprising though? This has been State Department SOP for both wars. They may not be consistent, but they're following US policies as laid out by the White House.

I never said that it was surprising.

Why do some here seem to be quite reactionary at mine and other posters’ comments regarding these hypocritical statements and rhetoric?

I’m wondering what is causing this irritation, personally.

I do suspect that it falls partly upon political lines.

No one said they shouldn't be scrutinized. But again they're accountable first and foremost to the WH.

I never said they were not, as I’ve repeated fairly consistently.

Well, that's the M.O. of the press. It's their job to raise issues where they think it should be raised.

My point (as you are replying to my comment to another poster) is that this issue is particularly egregious, and we don’t often have such crystal clear empirical evidence that what the state department or any govt official is saying the case in Gaza is, in fact, not the case.

It’s about the gravity of the situation. More and more it becomes difficult for the choices and claims the US government (or any large entity) makes not to be tested for its validity.

I’m hoping that makes sense.

So what? They're still essentially an extension of the WH international policy directives. If you can't trust one, you can't trust the other because they essentially speak to the same policies.

“So what”?

Im going to repeat what this whole scuffle is about. It started with me questioning those who thought that the statement “the state department can’t be trusted” (paraphrasing) was made. People had a problem with that.

You keep repeating what essentially amounts to “WHY do you act so surprised? It’s protocol” when I never indicated that I was surprised about protocol.

This will continue to be about questioning why other posters seem to have such a problem with the narrative that you cannot trust the government’s statements - as evidenced by the last 10 months in Gaza being mostly the opposite of what they’ve claimed to be doing. That is in regard to intel, bombs, welcoming one war criminal to our congress while condemning another, praising the ICC when they condemn one war criminal but then going after the ICC when they go after another.. list goes on and on.

We can do this all day.

So back to the question - those of you who have a problem with the statement being mentioned in this context - WHY do you disagree with the statement?

That is and will continue to be the real question.

Again, that's nothing new or even unexpected.

That’s not what I’m interested in.

I’m interested in why clear hypocrisy in policy doesn’t bother others. And would challenge you or anyone to convince me of why as an American who cares both about other humans and about where a massive amount of our tax dollars go, this isn’t a serious issue.

Thats clearly your own opinion. The President doesn't believe he's contributing to their deaths. You can argue he's wrong in that, but that's what they believe.

He doesn’t have to believe anything. You don’t either.

But at the end of the day what he believes and what his administration’s actions are involved in create quite the chasm, don’t they?

I really want to understand how you’d act in this situation:

How would you feel if your job was to tell the press you were concerned about the safety of the Palestinian people, knowing good and well your administration knew that Israel was only increasing their torturing, maiming, disfiguring and slaughter, and that your nation was allowing it to happen?

And please, I’m not interested in hearing again about protocol or “that’s the way it is”.

The answer is along the lines of being seriously morally conflicted, and feeling complicit in the dehumanization of an entire people during a genocide.

They can be trusted to carry out Biden’s foreign policies. The trust has to start at the WH.

Can the American people trust them when they claim to be doing everything they can for Palestinian lives while actively contributing to their demise?

Some would say that's a matter of opinion.

You’ve yet to provide a counter argument that I’ve seen.