The Frankish Reich

I've been trying to come up with a similar situation for the US. In other words "Gaza is to Israel as [blank] is the the USA." The closest I can come up with: some of us remember (vaguely) the radical American Indian movement of the 1970s. Imagine if a radical faction committed to ejecting all people of European (and I suppose Asian/African too) ancestry from the United States had taken over the Navajo nation, and that some US adversary (the USSR) had taken to sending them arms. And imagine that this radical group didn't just run the Navajo tribal government; it also had an armed faction that carried out attacks against civilians in Arizona/Utah/Colorado/New Mexico, and that one of these attacks involved killing hundreds of civilians and taking a couple hundred hostage in the territory of the Navajo Nation. Q. What actions would the United States be justified in taking in response? What action would not be justified?

I'd agree if Israel's intention is to occupy Gaza AND "resettle" it with Jews, I'd agree with you. But I can't imagine (or at least I don't want to even consider) that that's the plan.

I wouldn't say that. "Ethnic cleansing" is a term that came out of the Balkan conflict, stemming from the idea that Serbia was attempting to eliminate its Muslim/Kosovar population. In other words, a country with a multi-ethnic population, trying to rid itself of one ethno-religious group. Gaza is, as I understand it, basically mono-cultural, so the idea of ethnic cleansing wouldn't apply. That's not to say that I think that what Israel is doing is just fine and dandy. There are good arguments that its certainly not. There is also a good arguments that Gaza is a semi-autonomous region governed by Hamas, a group that sent its fighters into Israel to kill and abduct civilians. In other words, it is, in fact, a country that started a war with its neighbor.

My take: - if we miss the playoffs, 80% chance McD (and probably Beane) is gone. - if we go one-and-done, 50% chance - if we make it to the AFCG, 0% chance That's just kind of the way it goes. If your team takes a significant step back, you're usually on thin ice.

If that's directed at me, well, no, I'm not that stupid. I don't believe that Israel was somehow behind terrorists raids that slaughtered hundreds of its citizens and took a couple hundred hostage. What I'm suggesting is that the Hamas raids have convinced Netanyahu that there is no such thing as peaceful coexistence with Gaza as it was before October 6, and that he is engaging in a scorched earth policy that will essentially eliminate Gaza as it was before October 6. There is no need for a conspiracy theory to explain the events of this month.

You know those reports that you scoffed at? The ones about how household wealth has increased by 30+ percent since 2019? Well that's the other side of the home affordability issue. Existing homeowners, particularly those in desirable markets, are sitting on goldmines. New home buyers lose out.

Controversial? Yes. But here's what I really think is going on: 1. Gaza has been problematic for Israel for a long time. They were happy to sort of wash their hands of it back in 2006. Egypt doesn't want anything to do with it either. The whole concept of the "refugee camps" in Gaza is absurd. Nowhere else in the world do we have this concept of multi-generational refugees. Palestinians were forcibly relocated to Gaza when the Arab states attacked Israel shortly after its formation. The children, and children's children, and children's children's children of these refugees continue to reside there with some vague notion that they will be resettled somewhere (they think Israel, where they came from) at some time in the future. Many have left by immigrating to other places (hence the Palestinians in the US), but no Arab country has invited them to resettle in large numbers for what is now 75 years. In other words, they were not going anywhere. 2. Until now, that is. Israel already has forcibly evacuated half of Gaza. And they are systematically bombing both the north and the south. This is ostensibly to root out Hamas targets, but the bombing is so widespread that I find it difficult to believe that they have good Intel that Hamas terrorists or command/control are located in every bombed location. 3. Therefore, I think Israel's true purpose is to force - finally, after 75 years - a relocation of people out of Gaza. Face facts: those who have left the north have nowhere to return to. Their homes and infrastructure are destroyed. And I have to assume that sooner or later the same will happen in the South. Israel is forcing a mass relocation of people out of Gaza. Again, ostensibly they are trying to root out/kill Hamas terrorists, but I think that involves neutralizing the threat from Gaza entirely by essentially depopulating it. Gaza has been an impediment to any two-state solution. Look at the two-state maps that have been proposed: there is no good way to connect up Gaza to the West Bank while preserving Israel's territorial integrity and security. Israel is sick and tired of having to deal with Gaza. This provides the opportunity to make it go away. 4. The endgame: I have no idea. I don't know if Israel has an idea. Having created a new displaced persons crisis, I posit that Israel is hoping that other countries (particularly Arab countries) will resettled Gazans. No doubt western countries will do so too as the humanitarian crisis becomes more and more obvious. I don't know what they think the official status of Gaza will be after this is all done. Israel probably has no interest in annexing it and taking the blowback from the US and world community. So perhaps occupying it again even though they don't want to. Maybe some Gazans will resettle in the West Bank. Israel (not Netanyahu, but most Israelis) can live with a Palestinian state in the West Bank once the Gaza "problem" is gone. I know I am being deliberately neutral about whether these things are warranted or even in violation of international law. I am just suggesting that there is more here than simply neutralizing Hamas in Gaza and allowing Gaza to continue to exist in something like its current status.

Yellow headed weirdo claims he never spoke to "red headed weirdo" about nuclear subs. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-claims-he-never-spoke-to-billionaire-red-haired-weirdo-about-nuclear-submarines

"Iron Dome (Hebrew: כִּפַּת בַּרְזֶל, romanized: Kippat Barzel) is an Israeli mobile all-weather air defense system[8] developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries.[7] The system is designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) to 70 kilometres (43 mi) away and whose trajectory would take them to an Israeli populated area.[9][10] From 2011 to 2021, the United States contributed a total of US$1.6 billion to the Iron Dome defense system,[11] with another US$1 billion approved by the US Congress in 2022." So ... from Canada, Mexico, or maybe from the sea. In other words, this would be an idiotic use of U.S. military resources. But Trump thinks it sounds good to his potential voters: "Hey, let's put an Iron Dome around the United States too."

He took a few snaps in their win yesterday. By the way, you were doing really well on the "most ludicrous post" derby until that "Jets will win the Super Bowl" blew this one out of the water ....

Assume everyone on the defense is healthy pre-season. Who are the most important players? 1. Milano 2. Von 3. Tre And then add in Jones and Rousseau (playing, but not himself now). We should expect a better effort against the Pats, yes, but to expect this defense to perform the way they did in the first half of last season just isn't realistic.

I still feel fine about our prospects about winning the division or at least getting a wild card. I don’t feel fine about making (much less winning) the Super Bowl.

I’m not so good at math. Are we now ONE GAME behind the Dolphins in the loss column? Because everyone here says we’re toast.

We didn’t really do anything different than the Rams, except that they actually did win the Super Bowl before those contracts turned bad.

Yeah, the Tua hate just gets weird sometimes. Hitting guys in stride isn’t easy, and he’s great at that.

Gotta say I love watching those big arc rainbow deep throws. It’s no Josh Allen, but it’s pretty in its own way.

They gave Knox a big contract based on promise, not performance. And it turns out he just hasn’t gotten any better. That contract extension was debatable at the time, and an error in retrospect. Miller? He gave us exactly what we weee after. A fantastic addition till he went down. I don’t think you could say he was a bigger injury risk than any other player; he was coming off a superb season in LA. Sometimes it’s just bad luck defeating sound planning.

And now they’ve revived the corpse of Julio Jones. We need to investigate what kind of wizardry they’re using in Philly.

I’m sure Knox could drop those too

I just want to clarify that we are talking about Trent Sherfield Sr. and not his 10 month old baby boy, Tent Sherfield Jr. This has been the source of much confusion, causing the Bills WR to add the “Sr” to his jersey. On a different point: We have also talked for many years about how the Bills could use a tall receiver for red zone plays, which is why we got 5’6” Deonte Harty. Unfortunately Josh thinks he is the 6’6” guy he wanted and overthrew him by a foot.

A RB who stays in to block and can actually block would have helped today.

Where would we be without the semi-annual “keep calm and carry on” posts?

I think in our hearts most Bills fans knew after the Bengals debacle that the window was closed. Time to reload as they say, meaning a partial rebuild.

True. Everyone was ready to dump Frazier for his mulish obsession with playing only cover 2 and not being aggressive. Now? “We should have just played cover 2 and made Mac Jones earn it”

Michelle Goldberg is a liberal NY Times columnist. I generally don't agree with her columns. But this one is very solid and fair. It is not Twitter/X. You need to actually read a few paragraphs (a lost art around here) instead of an inflammatory 200 character characterization. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/opinion/israel-war-gaza-hospital-danger.html Of course, I’d read Israel’s insistence that an errant Islamic Jihad rocket had caused the explosion at the hospital, but I didn’t put much stock in it, because in the past when Israel accidentally killed civilians, it has blamed Palestinians for the deaths. In May of last year, the Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while covering an Israeli raid on the Jenin refugee camp. Israeli officials said she was shot either by a Palestinian or by an Israeli soldier aiming at a Palestinian gunman. A New York Times investigation, however, contradicted the official Israeli line. It found that the bullet that killed Abu Akleh was fired from the direction of an Israeli military convoy and that “there were no armed Palestinians near her when she was shot.” A few months later, during another round of Israeli bombing of Gaza, five Palestinian boys were killed in a cemetery. Initially, Israeli officials blamed a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket for the deaths. But as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported, an army inquiry found they were actually killed by an Israeli airstrike. With the hospital explosion, it seemed history was repeating itself on a larger and more tragic scale. Perhaps it was, just not in the way I thought. As I write this, it looks increasingly likely that Israel was correct about an Islamic Jihad rocket hitting Al-Ahli hospital. That, at least, is what both early American intelligence and a number of independent experts have found. If their analysis holds up, it means the best analogy for this world-convulsing event is not the killings of five boys in Gaza last year. It is the myth of a massacre at the Jenin refugee camp in 2002. The article continues, analyzing a "Jenin (West Bank) massacre" by the Israeli IDF that probably never happened.