superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,483
1. I never understood the "Hamas leader dies; thus Hamas will now surrender" idea. Like, maybe that works in some places (though, aside from Hans Landa's valiant effort to end WWII, which was compelling but perhaps a tad unrealistic), but is there any evidence at all to think Hamas would react that way? I guess there's nothing wrong with hope -- there's an impasse; eliminating the leader at least changes something, and maybe it would be for the better. It's plausible, but I never thought it remotely likely.So much for hoping Sinwar’s death would reignite cease fire talks.
I never had hope for it since Bibi’s regime has made it clear they’re going to continue their campaign of death and destruction as long as the U.S. lets them.
Violating international law by blocking humanitarian aid? Ok Israel, you’ve got 30 days, then we’ll really slap you on the wrist.
2. It takes two to tango and obviously Bibi has no intention of seeking peace. Never has.
3. The problem with your last sentence is that the US and Israel really are close allies -- particularly in intelligence. So putting distance between the two countries is difficult for reasons that go beyond Zionist politics in the US. We would have to rebuild a lot of our intelligence service, and I don't think we have the capability to do that as a nation right now. Obviously I don't speak from experience here, but this is what I've read and it makes sense. There was certainly collaboration on stuxnet and that can't be the extent of it.