Well, pointedly, the question was not: “Does your current health insurance provide good value?”

I’m betting a hell of a lot less than 81% of people would rate value as “excellent” or “good”.

81 percent of insured adults gave their health insurance plans a rating of “excellent” or “good.”

In related news, 81 percent of diners at Michelin star restaurants rated their own food security as “excellent” or “good”.

An operation can be both an act of resistance and terrorism at the same time

I broadly agree, but the language of the original article is what I objected to:

It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists.

That language clearly implies that the label “terrorist” is invalid.

EDIT: Just to clarify. We’ve seen this many times before.

The Muhajadeen who fought so hard to free Aghanistan from the Soviet Union had a just cause, and they were certainly resistance fighters. But they had no interest whatsoever in “freedom” for Afghanistan. They wanted to rule it.

That is the same accusation I am levying against Hamas. They are terrorists, and they are resistance fighters. But they are not freedom fighters. Their goal is to eject Israel and install an Islamist, anti-democratic state.

Admins, please answer this.

In the United States, the right to trial by jury is absolute. Once of the consequences of that right is that juries can choose to follow the law, or not, a they see fit to ethically administer justice. “Should a jury nullify if…” regarding hypothetical future crimes is a completely legitimate topic of conversation, to explore the ethical issues of nullification.

one is extreme due to being occupied with no one bringing justice to Palestinians

And Hamas is bringing no justice to Palestinians. Did Hamas invade and take Israelis captive to “bring justice to Palestinians”? Absolutely not, they perfectly well understood what Israel would do in return. That’s what they wanted. This is the conflict Israel was propping up Hamas for. Hamas’ job was to start the war, and they did.

Hamas is extreme and all the leaders should be held accountable once Palestinians are free. It doesn’t change the fact that Israel is an occupying force and are currently killing Palestinians

That is precisely what I meant by “they’re both wrong”.

Good things take time

Like a watch repossessor

(Credit to The Wordburglar )

Oh I’ll happily condemn Netanyahu.

Don’t unroll your windows 'cause those monkeys seem confused and irritable.

It’s in the Hamas charter. The organization is literally founded on the ideal that killing all Jews is commanded by Islam:

… the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

The Anc in south Africa was responsible of killing civilians

And how did that conflict end?

Did the ANC push all the white people into the sea?

It ended with truth and reconciliation. It ended with the ANC committed to peaceful transition.

I see zero indication that Hamas will lead Gaza in that direction. They are the polar opposite, becoming more militant and extreme over time, not less.

Agreed. Hamas and Israel are locked in a death struggle – the existence of Hamas depends on a “river Jordan to the sea” hard line position on the extermination of Israel, and Hamas’ existence fuels Israeli conservative support for apartheid.

Which is why I think anybody characterizing Hamas as “freedom fighters” is disingenuous. Fighters, certainly, but not for freedom.

I never said that. I said that Hamas doesn’t particularly care about freedom or independence in Gaza, and I stand by that.

Hamas will feed every Palestinian man, woman, and child into the Israeli war machine, if they believe that it will deprive Israel of a hectare of territory. Pushing Israel into the sea is their primary goal. That’s their priority. And their aggression will insure that the war machine operates at full capacity, and that it continues to receive the active support of the international community.

Personally, I think the Palestine cause is just. Unfortunately, I think it’s also futile. The hard line against Israel is gonna get a lot more people killed, with no positive result for Palestinians. At this point, the best hope for the future of the region is an independent state solution.

Broadly I agree with you that, inasmuch as Hamas enjoys popular support, it is for exactly that reason.

But, that does not mean Hamas is fighting for the freedom and independence of Gaza. They are fighting to push Israel into the sea, and any means to that end is acceptable to them, including putting Gazans in terrible risk.

Gazan independence does not demand violence; it only demands a government that is willing to put down the sword and negotiate, so that Netanyahu and Likud are not emboldened to continually tighten the noose. At least, that’s what Netanyahu believes – that a violent oppressor in Gaza is crucial to the success of Likud.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister

Prime minister for most of the last 15 years, Netanyahu has been an enabler of Hamas, building up the organisation, letting it rule Gaza unhindered – save for brief, periodic military operations against it – and allowing funds from its Gulf patrons to keep it flush. Netanyahu liked the idea of the Palestinians as a house divided – Fatah in the West Bank, Hamas in Gaza – because it allowed him to insist that there was no Palestinian partner he could do business with. That meant no peace process, no prospect of a Palestinian state, and no demand for Israeli territorial concessions.

None of this was a secret. In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

Respectfully, I disagree. Hamas hasn’t allowed elections in the region since 2007. They are authoritarian, autocratic, Islamist statists with the sole goal of the elimination of Israel. They are not focused on improving the economy of Gaza, or granting freedom to the Gazan people.

That’s exactly why it’s been explicitly stated Likud policy to support them — conservative leadership in Israel wants to see the people of Gaza violently oppressed and stirred against Israel. An enemy on the border serves the conservative agenda.

A peaceful government dedicated to increasing Gazan freedom & independence would not serve Israeli interests, which is why Netanyahu has worked so hard to keep Hamas in charge in Gaza.

I mean… they’re both wrong.

Schocken said “the Netanyahu government doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population. It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements

No lies detected.

while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists.”

If Schocken is referring to Hamas, then he’s out of his mind. Freedom is the last thing Hamas wants for Gaza or Palestine.

Shockwire!

I think the real answer is that we end up kind of like the UK – going from the worlds ultra-dominant superpower to a sort of slow regression to the mean, as China, India and others take the spotlight.

When you look at what China is doing with their Belt and Road Initiative, and their move to dominate the transportation infrastructure of developing nations – the US isn’t anywhere near equipped to counter that. We’re still in a cold war mentality thinking that we will dominate as the world’s police force.

Meanwhile, all the actual economies will be run by Chinese companies operating with state support.

The difference between “ethically” and “ethnically” was never more stark.