So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?
He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box.
"The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do
after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.
"allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do
after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.
Of course it's something to be done
after the goal of removing Hamas from power has been achieved.
Glad you agree. So we've established that neither of those two answers addresses Tigers!' challenge to you. Neither does anything else in your post -- yet you wrote it all as if you were addressing his challenge, going so far as to start your post with "The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is...". Don't do that. Don't play act as if you're giving him a substantive answer when you aren't. If the real answer is that you don't know any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza, say that.
Everyone participating in this discussion thread has agreed that Hamas must be removed from power in Gaza, and kept from power in the West Bank, for there to be peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Do I really have to say it every <expletive deleted> time, over and over again, like I'm talking to a very slow-learning child, or can I just post as though I'm having a discussion with an average adult who is able to remember simple points of mutual agreement?
I'm beginning to see why the things you say to me are so disconnected from what I'd said to you -- apparently you have a massive reading comprehension problem. It looks like when you read the words "you have never given any practical, realistic, achievable ways or means to achieve that aim", for some reason you imagined you were seeing the words "You don't want Hamas removed from power, do you?". Everything you write makes more sense if we infer that that's what you thought he said to you. That's not what he said to you. What he said was "you have never given any practical, realistic, achievable ways or means to achieve that aim".
So no, you don't need to say it every time, over and over. You didn't need to say it to me even once; you didn't need to cuss at me; you didn't need to compare me to a slow-learning child; you didn't need to make-believe I don't remember simple points of mutual agreement; and
you certainly didn't need to falsely insinuate that I ever implied you don't want Hamas removed. You are verging into strawman territory with this line of response. Give it a rest.
The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history, not to just thoughtlessly charge in full speed ahead like a dumbass and keep making the same mistakes over and over again. The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to ensure that the peacemakers are successful, that diplomacy is a viable strategy for resolving conflicts and not an exercise in futility, that the human rights of all parties are respected, and that the assholes who keep inflaming the situation are sidelined.
The specific details are what negotiators and diplomats work out between parties.
I.e., the approach you propose is to "ensure" that your impossible fantasy comes to pass by counting on diplomats to just make it happen, without giving them an iota of input on how to go about sidelining those who intend to stop them, and without explaining how it's possible even in principle to respect the human rights of all parties. The human rights of all parties conflict with each other -- any specific details negotiated between parties are inevitably going to be either robbing Peter to pay Paul, or else robbing Peter and not paying Paul. You might as well say the proper settlement of Alice's estate is for her million dollar home to be sold and her sons Bob and Charlie to each receive their rightful $333,333 shares, and her son David to receive nothing because he's the one who burned the house down. You want the human rights of all parties respected, you better go find yourself a DeLorean with a flux capacitor.
"Hamas must be militarily defeated. It must be politically defeated, too." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's a Monty-Pythonesque circular prescription: "Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him."
Please review my posts in which I addressed the issue of Rules of Engagement and compared the hostage rescue mission in June to the Battle of Mogadishu before making any more silly analogies or strawman arguments.
I have reviewed them.
Here's a canonical example. They're a prescription for what you think Israel should not do. Why you imagine Israel following the U.S.'s RoE will cause Hamas to be removed from power is a mystery. Telling soldiers what not to do is a poor substitute for telling them what to do. Moreover, when you propose that as a model you might want to take into account
who won the Battle of Mogadishu. Our troops never did capture Mohamed Aidid, they never did make Mogadishu safe for the humanitarian aid providers he was a threat to, and the UN peacekeepers had to pull out. Maybe it's possible to remove Hamas while following U.S. RoE and maybe it isn't, but you certainly can't show it's possible by pointing to an example where it didn't work. So no, what you presented was not "practical, realistic, achievable ways or means to achieve that aim".
When I was challenged over what Rules of Engagement I believed the IDF should follow, I provided them.
That might have been a useful post to link to in response to Tigers!'s "Unless there was a single post that I missed along the way.", if you have reason to think Israel following those Rules of Engagement would actually cause Hamas to surrender.
So I really do have to repost everything I have already said, even if I said it initially in response to the poster I'm responding to?
Um, no. You don't have to do anything at all if you're okay with coming off as completely unreasonable. I suggested you repost one thing, not every thing. And take note of the "if" clause in my suggestion...
What a huge waste of time.
... so yes. Since on examination of the posts in question it turns out you don't have reason to think Israel following those Rules of Engagement would actually cause Hamas to surrender, yes, all your talk of Rules of Engagement is a huge waste of time.
When I was asked if I thought the Nazis should have been allowed to enter into formal agreements with the victorious allies, I provided links to the information demonstrating that that's what actually happened when Donitz took over following Hitler's suicide.
The Allies believed Donitz could be trusted to end the fighting, and not resume it later, and shut down other Nazis attempting to resume it. Do you think there's someone in Hamas Israel can similarly trust?
Tigers! had been expressing shock at the thought of Israel accepting a negotiated surrender from Hamas, and asked "Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?" That's
where Donitz became part of the discussion.
Well, good for you for substantively addressing one of the points Tigers! made. But you and I were discussing your failure to substantively address a different point Tigers! made; Donitz does not appear to be pertinent to that point.
I wasn't.
You assumed I was putting the cart in front of the horse. I assumed you had been following the discussion and that I didn't need to keep restating a basic point on which we all agree.
I hadn't been -- I paused on this thread for about eight months due to its utter lack of progress -- and you didn't, since, see above, I didn't give you any reason to suppose I was denying you wanted Hamas defeated. That was your own poor reading comprehension. I assumed you were putting the cart in front of the horse because I assumed you were trying to address Tigers!' challenge, because you phrased your answer to look like you were. But apparently you weren't trying to address his challenge, but rather some other challenge that was a figment of your imagination.
