kyboren

If so, the guy needs to get his name and message out there pronto. I don't hear jack shit about him, so he clearly sucks at gaining attention, and that's one thing both Trump and AOC excel at. These days, that seems to matter more than almost anything else.

> It's early, yet, but if Democrats can't win a state or two in the south, they're going to have a hard time taking the White House.

The Democrats are going to have a hard time taking the White House. Full stop. The electoral map isn't pretty. And if current trends continue, it's gonna become almost impossible for a Democrat to win the Presidency after the next reapportionment.

> The northern "blue wall" simply aint

Preach. It was always a delusion. Democrats have a long history of taking their voters for granted. Then, of course, they are shocked when they give them the finger. Unfortunately I don't see this changing any time soon. The DSA faction seems similarly aloof, in their own way.

> The good thing about Harris running instead of Newsom is that she's less likely to win the nomination.

That's a good point.

What scares me about Newsom is that, outside of California, Newsom's corruption, broken promises, and policy failures are totally unknown. He's just the handsome guy with all those great anti-Trump zingers. And as a relatively young white man, he might be seen as a demographically "safe" choice for primary voters burnt by their experience with Hillary and Kamala.

> I hope primary voters are as fed up with the corporate Democratic party as the country in general is.

I think a good chunk of them are. The question is really, who can win both the Democratic nomination and the general election?

AOC is the obvious choice for the DSA faction, but I'm deeply skeptical she can win in the general. The corporate faction seems dead set on Newsom or Kamala. If Kamala can somehow eke out a primary victory, she's gonna crash and burn badly in the general. And I don't see anyone else suddenly appearing as a viable candidate.

So from where I'm sitting, it looks like Democrats' most likely path to victory goes through Newsom. And I think his corruption and inevitably poor governance will discredit the Democratic party for a generation and catapult MAGA--perhaps another Trump--back into power. Then we'll be properly fucked.

And yet self-reliance is a virtue for nation-states, too. Every serious country on the planet has an agricultural and industrial policy specifically calibrated to ensure adequate domestic production of essential goods and services.

There's a happy medium somewhere between Juche and just-in-time rawdogging global markets.

Aren't they already fired up about this, that, and the other? They don't seem to need much excuse. And the US kills terrorists all the time.

Anyway, I don't think US policy should revolve around how jihadis react, regardless of whether or not livestreamed executions are good policy.

I wasn't referring to Gaza City, I was referring to Gaza in its entirety.

It's completely ridiculous to say that a single city becoming an urban combat zone and getting largely destroyed is "ethnic cleansing".

If Rafah had been teeming with Christians or transsexual capital-B Black Jewish lesbians they'd have been displaced (note: displaced, not ethnically cleansed) in exactly the same way as any other resident of the area.

But of course, Rafah wasn't teeming with Christians, because most of the Christians in Gaza have already been actually "cleansed" from Gaza. And those entirely-hypothetical diverse LGBT folks would have been unceremoniously pushed off of rooftops.

You guys have completely lost the plot.

Wow, there are no more Arabs in Gaza now? Big if true.

> You are saying that Israel has shown itself to not be susceptible to international pressure on existential questions yet it engaged for decades in political and diplomatic action to be where it is today; it was not looked at that favorably by Western powers even a few decades backs.

My impression is the Western powers--Kissinger in particular--didn't really give a shit about Israel. Then Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, starting the Yom Kippur War, and the USSR promised to back them up. Golda Meir threatened to go nuclear and Nixon launched Operation Nickel Grass in order to give her a more palatable alternative.

Israel hasn't necessarily been looked upon more favorably since then, but they've continued to receive strategic support from the US in order to persuade them they don't need to open that Pandora's Box.

> allow BDS to work and stop military aid then Israel is going to have a much more difficult time

Perhaps, but for the aforementioned reason that's not necessarily a good thing. An Israel without Uncle Sam backing them up telling them, "nah bro, chill, we got this" is going to be an Israel more likely to do exactly the things you don't want them to do.

If they feel their existence is truly threatened, they will go all the way. But in the mean time, while under the US's security umbrella, it's true: They're better off not doing things that might get them cut off. Threatening to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel is not only totally impractical but actually increases the risk of the genocide you lefties keep bleating about, because it would make the Gaza/Lebanon security crisis existential.

> Also Israel depends very much on its network of high-tech companies, companies that are extremely sensitive to any sort of sanctions regime

It would be a truly huge disruption, but they have those high-tech companies because they have the talent. If they get sanctioned up the wazoo, I'm sure China would be happy to pivot in to become Israel's patron, at least economically.

> And once Israel is politically and militarily isolated it becomes a much easier target against rivals in the Middle East

Israel's only real rival in the Middle East is Iran, and as you may have noticed, they have disengaged from direct combat.

Israel made it rain oil in Tehran. Iran made it rain ballistic missiles in Israel. Neither can afford total warfare with the other; they're too close together.

> They want to take the land and if means killing anyone in it so be it

They've had the capability for decades. So why hasn't it happened? You say, "that's not an argument," but I think it is. If we accept your claims, then it follows that Israel has had the means, motive, and opportunity to kill everyone in Gaza for years (at least).

The fact that they still haven't done that suggests that your claims are false.

> Ben Gvir is on record as saying that it has to be such that the diplomatic consequences don't affect them.

Ah, so it's just international pressure holding them back. Right.

I don't buy it. Israel has hardly shown itself to be susceptible to international pressure on existential questions. And at the end of the day, they are a nuclear power and functionally immune to military threats from rational actors. If the IDF started the genocide tomorrow ain't nobody gonna do shit about it.

Sure there might be sanctions, etc. but there will always be someone willing to work with them. And their foreign military sales make sanctions not exactly straightforward for e.g. Germany.

> Do you really think about these responses when you asked or do you just make knee-jerk questions of the lowest caliber?

The questions needed to be asked at all because it was your comment that was of the lowest caliber. All smoke and no fire.

> some fighting eventually with a few fighters holed in in Rafah

Can you please remind me where they finally found Yahya Sinwar? And was that before or after they "level[ed] the city"? Do you think they would have found him if they left the city untouched? Why was he there in the first place?

> And Israelis continue leveling entire areas the whole year after so called "ceasefire" during which there were almost no attacks on them

Hamas isn't following a ceasefire; they've been militarily degraded.

There's a causal relationship here: If the IDF hadn't destroyed so many fighting positions and booby-trapped buildings, there would have been many, many more attacks and IDF soldiers KIA.

You say "there's no justification" but unwittingly go on to point out exactly why it's justified.

> At this point there are literally hundreds of accounts of IDF members who were given told quite explicitly that it was an open field for killing with no consequences.

So they're all dead now? Ethnic cleansing complete?

> All of the allies of Likud and the settler movement wants Palestinians expelled.

Wait, I thought they wanted them murdered in "an open field for killing with no consequences"?

> When the members of the biggest coalition in the Knesset say openly and proudly that they are doing ethnic cleansing

Then why is it taking so long?

You say civilian dwellings, I say fighting positions. You see the same sort of thing in any urban combat zone.

How many apartment buildings are left standing in Bakhmut?