i've been periodically googling chomsky for his response to the gaza mess because i was curious. i would actually expect his response to be a little different from that on the current fake left, as chomsky was an unabashed zionist that was critical of the state of israel's behaviour because he thought it put the zionist project under threat of destruction and not somebody that hated himself or wanted israel to disappear. chomsky always was clear that he supported a zero state solution, preferred a single state as a pragmatic approach (years ago, he would bring up yugoslavia...) and thought two states was an absurdity and a non-starter. chomsky wanted to support palestinian self-determination in the context of zionism rather than in opposition to it, which made him an anachronism. but, i think his position was preferable to anything we've heard on the left or the right since camp david. the idea of two states has been an utter failure and the insistence on segregation has simply led to entrenched divisions and perpetual conflict. he saw that coming, and he was right.

i would certainly have expected noam to be critical of israel's response as being disproportionate. but, what i've been struggling with trying to define is what "proportionate" means in the context of such a vicious attack and concluded that a proportionate response is a ferocious one intended to produce a strong disincentive. i would have liked to hear him try to articulate his concept of proportionality, and i'm sure he would have brought up something i hadn't thought about, even if i disagreed with him. i don't think he would have aligned with the hamas sympathizers.

unfortunately, we're going to all need to figure that out on our own.

the left is going to be a very different place without noam chomsky, who has played the role of virtual yoda since before my father was born, and before there was even a yoda. but, this was predictable. eventually.

and so it goes.

this is predictable, and what happens when you negotiate with terrorists - they interpret hostage taking as an effective extortion strategy and they do it again.

expect further kidnappings by iranian proxies, because our reaction to the kidnappings in gaza has demonstrated to them that it's an effective strategy.

https://dppa.un.org/en/yemen-un-chief-demands-release-of-aid-workers-held-houthis

yeah.

labour may actually lose popular support, in comparison to 2017, but the tories are getting hammered by nigel farage, and if they don't think sunak's ethnicity is a component of that, they need to wake up.

i'm a hardly a tory supporter, even if i would expect a starmer pmo to be disappointing, to say the least. however, there's been no uptick in labour support. at all.

sunak should have resigned to allow another leadership race, rather than call an election, but labour will take the easy win.

is the actual truth that rishi sunak is losing horribly because he's not an indigenous brit?

well, i have some sympathy for that position. unlike canada or the united states, the united kingdom is not a colonial state. 

brits have every right to expect self-rule and to want to elect somebody that looks like them.

the united nations has been clear for decades that any negotiation with terrorist groups is in contravention of international law. no exceptions*.

* except when the victims are jews.

further, the unsc resolution adopted yesterday appears to rather blatantly contradict previous unsc resolutions that ban any negotiation with terrorism, but...this body is subject to no oversight and it's resolutions have no legal force, so of what consequence is it when it contradicts itself, other than to challenge it's relevance and validity?

a body that contradicts itself with no mechanism for oversight is of no consequence.

(2)  Consular roles do not include:

(a)  Participation in developing and implementing a ransom strategy.  Such activity is contrary to U.S. Government policy on hostage taking and kidnapping.  (See 7 FAM 1821 e and 7 FAM 1823.)

(b)  Encouraging families or employers to negotiate with hostage takers.  Such activity is contrary to U.S. Government policy on hostage taking and kidnapping.  (See 7 FAM 1821 e and 7 FAM 1823.)

The U.S. Government will make no concessions to individuals or groups holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage.  The United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of U.S. citizens who are held hostage.  At the same time, it is U.S. Government policy to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession.  See 7 FAM 1821 e regarding U.S. Government policy and limitations on the role of Foreign Service posts and the Department of State should private citizens, organizations or companies elect to negotiate with hostage takers or pay ransom.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1820.html

frankly, i think an impeachment hearing for anthony blinken is justified, based on the news reports i'm hearing.

the legality of blinken negotiating with hamas, or ordering that israel do so, is an open question in american law.

the supreme court would seem to think it's illegal, but obama tried to evade it via an executive order.

https://archive.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5494-khaw---hostage-negotiations-with-terrorists-10

as far as i can tell, the biden administration has not even addressed the issue at all. 

some pressure should be placed on the biden administration to explain why it has decided to negotiate with a terrorist group, all of a sudden, and without providing any explanation or justification for doing so.

i mean, do you remember what happened to jimmy carter with the iranian hostages?

i don't either, although i've read about it. almost nobody alive remembers that.

joe biden remembers.

is it even illegal for the united states to negotiate with hamas, or demand israel does?

i'm not sure we have another example of the united states acting so blatantly imperially as we are now seeing with blinken essentially lying about the authorship of the peace deal, and just forcing it through, whether israel likes it or not. linda thomas greenfield is apparently signing the peace deal on behalf of israel and telling them to sit down and shut up.

the terms of the proposed deal, as far as i can put them together, are entirely delusional. israel is being ordered to negotiate with a terrorist group. the position of all civilized countries should be that they will not negotiate with terrorist groups.

there is nothing that can be accomplished by negotiating with hamas. but, israel is in a very difficult position, where the president is basically a complete retard, and his foreign policy establishment is desperately trying to avoid losing an election, which is obviously actually going to backfire. biden is going to lose ten times as much support for abandoning israel as he is going to gain for siding with a terrorist group, and that is actually how the republicans should frame it - biden and blinken are in bed with the terrorists.

what a bunch of idiots....

meanwhile, hamas will continue to expect to be recognized as a state in return for the hostages, which is a tactic that should be universally condemned, and all israel can do in response is to fight.