Humanitarian crisis: Gaza could surrender. The Gazan military / Hamas could lay down their arms. Those responsibile for October 7 could turn themselves over to the Israeli's. If the rulers of Gaza cared, that's what they could do.
They don't. Why should Israel care more about Gazan lives than Gazan leaders?
Oh, but "Netanyahu was funding Hamas" So? Sometimes you don't have good choices. And sometimes you make bad choices. That it makes it Israel's fault? Because Israel is the adult in the room? Really? That's the argument?
Free speech: I'm going to play (in the game theoretic sense) Tit-For-Tat. John, Glenn, and Tyler all got it right: "All Lives Matter". "Lock and Load." "The South shall rise again". When the Left agrees to fully defend that speech (note, I'm NOT specifically making any of those statements), I'll defend theirs. Until then, no, I'm not going to defend their speech. "Free speech" defended by one side is not a winning strategy.
"From the River to the Sea..." If people chanting that got their wish, in what world would human rights in the region increase? Show me the nation in the region with a better human rights record than Israel. To imagine a new Palestinian state -- even in a fantasy world where it wasn't Israel's sworn enemy -- is to image a state where human rights do not flourish.
Finally, Glenn, even though I've often disagreed with your guests, I've always found them interesting and thought provoking. But not Daniel. It's only a slight exageration to say I completely disagreed with him. When he talks about "reality" and then suggests that Israel (a nuclear-armed Israel, no less) is trying to "annihilate a population" -- just WOW. He might want to look at the population growth in Gaza over the past 20 years, and consider what Israel's military could do if they wanted to just kill as many Gazans as possible. Worst job of "annihilation" I can remember.
And don't even get me started on his apparent love of poverty or communism over capitalism. "Consumption is destroying the planet." Would he prefer to not consume? Where does that end?
Humanitarian crisis: Gaza could surrender. The Gazan military / Hamas could lay down their arms. Those responsibile for October 7 could turn themselves over to the Israeli's. If the rulers of Gaza cared, that's what they could do.
They don't. Why should Israel care more about Gazan lives than Gazan leaders?
Oh, but "Netanyahu was funding Hamas" So? Sometimes you don't have good choices. And sometimes you make bad choices. That it makes it Israel's fault? Because Israel is the adult in the room? Really? That's the argument?
Free speech: I'm going to play (in the game theoretic sense) Tit-For-Tat. John, Glenn, and Tyler all got it right: "All Lives Matter". "Lock and Load." "The South shall rise again". When the Left agrees to fully defend that speech (note, I'm NOT specifically making any of those statements), I'll defend theirs. Until then, no, I'm not going to defend their speech. "Free speech" defended by one side is not a winning strategy.
"From the River to the Sea..." If people chanting that got their wish, in what world would human rights in the region increase? Show me the nation in the region with a better human rights record than Israel. To imagine a new Palestinian state -- even in a fantasy world where it wasn't Israel's sworn enemy -- is to image a state where human rights do not flourish.
Finally, Glenn, even though I've often disagreed with your guests, I've always found them interesting and thought provoking. But not Daniel. It's only a slight exageration to say I completely disagreed with him. When he talks about "reality" and then suggests that Israel (a nuclear-armed Israel, no less) is trying to "annihilate a population" -- just WOW. He might want to look at the population growth in Gaza over the past 20 years, and consider what Israel's military could do if they wanted to just kill as many Gazans as possible. Worst job of "annihilation" I can remember.
And don't even get me started on his apparent love of poverty or communism over capitalism. "Consumption is destroying the planet." Would he prefer to not consume? Where does that end?