(07-29-2024 11:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  war crimes?

Four days after Biden stepped aside as the nominee, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an address to Congress, which Harris did not attend due to scheduling conflicts. Instead, the vice president met separately with Netanyahu at the White House later in the week.

After meeting with the Israeli leader, Harris vowed not "to be silent" about suffering in Gaza, saying she expressed "serious concerns" to Netanyahu during their meeting.


But her tone, which Republicans have seized on as being anti-Israel, has also not gone far enough for pro-Palestinian demonstrators, who have turned their focus to the vice president, and argue that she was just as complicit in Israel's military actions as Biden is.

I guess her attempt to cover both sides didn't work.

Hahahaha. I guess there is no winning when it comes to this issue. What would Trump do in this situation which would make both sides happy?

Yes, WADABOUT Trump?

Not a WADABOUT as typically used on this forum. That usually means "OK, but look at this bad thing that YOUR person did!"

That's not what I did. I implied that taking a position on the Middle East was an unwinnable situation and wondered what he thought Trump would do in this situation that would be better. You know... like having a discussion as to what the better options were for an issue that we are discussing.

Why is it "unwinnable"? It's an election year. The winning approach would be to go with whichever position has the most public support. Trump might have done that. Then again, he might have made an even bigger ass of himself than Harris did.

(07-29-2024 11:57 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 09:22 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 09:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  another opinion

Coughlin, who currently serves as the Daily Telegraph’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Editor, pointed to Harris’ “less-than-impressive treatment this week of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Washington”

Like you and I, Coughlin just doesn't understand. Harris only seems to be clumsy and inept - she's actually a master of diplomacy. Who but a diplomatic genius could have convinced another world leader to allow himself to be insulted in public as part of a greater plan?

Insult?

What was the insult?
1) I have concerns about the civilian casualties taking place and I won't stay silent about them?

or

2) A cease-fire needs to happen.

Which of those is an insult?

Or perhaps the idea that Harris was stronger with her words in the press conference that she was in the closed-door meetings? Was that the "insult"?" If so, you have to be convinced that the Israeli spokesman's words were completely accurate and was not an attempt to save face when their hopes of getting a rubber-stamp on the war was not provided? Who knows?

Yes, Netanyahu is insulted that he's not getting the possible future President's backing.

Backing to do absolutely whatever he wants?

(07-29-2024 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  war crimes?

Four days after Biden stepped aside as the nominee, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an address to Congress, which Harris did not attend due to scheduling conflicts. Instead, the vice president met separately with Netanyahu at the White House later in the week.

After meeting with the Israeli leader, Harris vowed not "to be silent" about suffering in Gaza, saying she expressed "serious concerns" to Netanyahu during their meeting.


But her tone, which Republicans have seized on as being anti-Israel, has also not gone far enough for pro-Palestinian demonstrators, who have turned their focus to the vice president, and argue that she was just as complicit in Israel's military actions as Biden is.

I guess her attempt to cover both sides didn't work.

Hahahaha. I guess there is no winning when it comes to this issue. What would Trump do in this situation which would make both sides happy?

Yes, WADABOUT Trump?

Not a WADABOUT as typically used on this forum. That usually means "OK, but look at this bad thing that YOUR person did!"

That's not what I did. I implied that taking a position on the Middle East was an unwinnable situation and wondered what he thought Trump would do in this situation that would be better. You know... like having a discussion as to what the better options were for an issue that we are discussing.

Why is it "unwinnable"? It's an election year. The winning approach would be to go with whichever position has the most public support. Trump might have done that. Then again, he might have made an even bigger ass of himself than Harris did.

Which position do you believe has the most public support? It's not clear to me.

What does your winnable approach look like?

(07-29-2024 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Hahahaha. I guess there is no winning when it comes to this issue. What would Trump do in this situation which would make both sides happy?

Yes, WADABOUT Trump?

Not a WADABOUT as typically used on this forum. That usually means "OK, but look at this bad thing that YOUR person did!"

That's not what I did. I implied that taking a position on the Middle East was an unwinnable situation and wondered what he thought Trump would do in this situation that would be better. You know... like having a discussion as to what the better options were for an issue that we are discussing.

Why is it "unwinnable"? It's an election year. The winning approach would be to go with whichever position has the most public support. Trump might have done that. Then again, he might have made an even bigger ass of himself than Harris did.

Which position do you believe has the most public support? It's not clear to me.

What does your winnable approach look like?

Do not antagonize the pro-Israel lobby and faction for the sake of appeasing pro-Hamas rabble. They're too powerful and well-funded, and certainly not worth alienating.

(07-29-2024 12:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, WADABOUT Trump?

Not a WADABOUT as typically used on this forum. That usually means "OK, but look at this bad thing that YOUR person did!"

That's not what I did. I implied that taking a position on the Middle East was an unwinnable situation and wondered what he thought Trump would do in this situation that would be better. You know... like having a discussion as to what the better options were for an issue that we are discussing.

Why is it "unwinnable"? It's an election year. The winning approach would be to go with whichever position has the most public support. Trump might have done that. Then again, he might have made an even bigger ass of himself than Harris did.

Which position do you believe has the most public support? It's not clear to me.

What does your winnable approach look like?

Do not antagonize the pro-Israel lobby and faction for the sake of appeasing pro-Hamas rabble. They're too powerful and well-funded, and certainly not worth alienating.

So don't do that post-Netanyahu-meeting press conference but otherwise it has been all good? I was hoping to understand more of what should be done rather than what they shouldn't have already done.

(07-29-2024 12:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 11:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Not a WADABOUT as typically used on this forum. That usually means "OK, but look at this bad thing that YOUR person did!"

That's not what I did. I implied that taking a position on the Middle East was an unwinnable situation and wondered what he thought Trump would do in this situation that would be better. You know... like having a discussion as to what the better options were for an issue that we are discussing.

Why is it "unwinnable"? It's an election year. The winning approach would be to go with whichever position has the most public support. Trump might have done that. Then again, he might have made an even bigger ass of himself than Harris did.

Which position do you believe has the most public support? It's not clear to me.

What does your winnable approach look like?

Do not antagonize the pro-Israel lobby and faction for the sake of appeasing pro-Hamas rabble. They're too powerful and well-funded, and certainly not worth alienating.

So don't do that post-Netanyahu-meeting press conference but otherwise it has been all good? I was hoping to understand more of what should be done rather than what they shouldn't have already done.

I think she should have done less.

(07-29-2024 12:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Why is it "unwinnable"? It's an election year. The winning approach would be to go with whichever position has the most public support. Trump might have done that. Then again, he might have made an even bigger ass of himself than Harris did.

Which position do you believe has the most public support? It's not clear to me.

What does your winnable approach look like?

Do not antagonize the pro-Israel lobby and faction for the sake of appeasing pro-Hamas rabble. They're too powerful and well-funded, and certainly not worth alienating.

So don't do that post-Netanyahu-meeting press conference but otherwise it has been all good? I was hoping to understand more of what should be done rather than what they shouldn't have already done.

I think she should have done less.

By these non-answers I am going to assume that you have joined the club with the rest of us who don't have the faintest idea how to deal with the conflict in the Middle East.

(07-29-2024 01:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Which position do you believe has the most public support? It's not clear to me.

What does your winnable approach look like?

Do not antagonize the pro-Israel lobby and faction for the sake of appeasing pro-Hamas rabble. They're too powerful and well-funded, and certainly not worth alienating.

So don't do that post-Netanyahu-meeting press conference but otherwise it has been all good? I was hoping to understand more of what should be done rather than what they shouldn't have already done.

I think she should have done less.

By these non-answers I am going to assume that you have joined the club with the rest of us who don't have the faintest idea how to deal with the conflict in the Middle East.

That's a different subject. As I understood you, you didn't ask me how to solve the world's problems, you asked me what Harris should do "in this situation" which I took to mean Netanyahu's visit. That's the question I'm answering.

(07-29-2024 12:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I think she should have done less.

What specifically less?

(07-29-2024 01:19 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Do not antagonize the pro-Israel lobby and faction for the sake of appeasing pro-Hamas rabble. They're too powerful and well-funded, and certainly not worth alienating.

So don't do that post-Netanyahu-meeting press conference but otherwise it has been all good? I was hoping to understand more of what should be done rather than what they shouldn't have already done.

I think she should have done less.

By these non-answers I am going to assume that you have joined the club with the rest of us who don't have the faintest idea how to deal with the conflict in the Middle East.

That's a different subject. As I understood you, you didn't ask me how to solve the world's problems, you asked me what Harris should do "in this situation" which I took to mean Netanyahu's visit. That's the question I'm answering.

I was more asking what should be done with the currently Israel/Hamas conflict. Should we be publicly supporting whatever Israel does and make no public mention of civilian casualties?

(07-29-2024 01:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:19 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So don't do that post-Netanyahu-meeting press conference but otherwise it has been all good? I was hoping to understand more of what should be done rather than what they shouldn't have already done.

I think she should have done less.

By these non-answers I am going to assume that you have joined the club with the rest of us who don't have the faintest idea how to deal with the conflict in the Middle East.

That's a different subject. As I understood you, you didn't ask me how to solve the world's problems, you asked me what Harris should do "in this situation" which I took to mean Netanyahu's visit. That's the question I'm answering.

I was more asking what should be done with the currently Israel/Hamas conflict. Should we be publicly supporting whatever Israel does and make no public mention of civilian casualties?

No, but no need to snub a foreign head of state to score points with an extreme faction either. I'm not arguing that Harris failed to bring about peace in the Middle East, just that her dealings with Netanyahu were less than adroit or politically astute.

(07-29-2024 01:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:19 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 12:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I think she should have done less.

By these non-answers I am going to assume that you have joined the club with the rest of us who don't have the faintest idea how to deal with the conflict in the Middle East.

That's a different subject. As I understood you, you didn't ask me how to solve the world's problems, you asked me what Harris should do "in this situation" which I took to mean Netanyahu's visit. That's the question I'm answering.

I was more asking what should be done with the currently Israel/Hamas conflict. Should we be publicly supporting whatever Israel does and make no public mention of civilian casualties?

No, but no need to snub a foreign head of state to score points with an extreme faction either. I'm not arguing that Harris failed to bring about peace in the Middle East, just that her dealings with Netanyahu were less than adroit or politically astute.

Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations. Maybe you're right. But maybe it was a message to Israel that they shouldn't expect us to rubber-stamp civilian casualties no matter how horrific. I guess time will tell if this was the right approach or not.

*edit* I'm hardly an extreme faction. I generally side with Israel's approach to this conflict and am no fan of Harris. But I appreciate our administration commenting on these civilian casualties.

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  *edit* I'm hardly an extreme faction. I generally side with Israel's approach to this conflict and am no fan of Harris. But I appreciate our administration commenting on these civilian casualties.

It was the time/place, not the comments. I agree with the comments - if made privately or in a different context.

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:19 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  By these non-answers I am going to assume that you have joined the club with the rest of us who don't have the faintest idea how to deal with the conflict in the Middle East.

That's a different subject. As I understood you, you didn't ask me how to solve the world's problems, you asked me what Harris should do "in this situation" which I took to mean Netanyahu's visit. That's the question I'm answering.

I was more asking what should be done with the currently Israel/Hamas conflict. Should we be publicly supporting whatever Israel does and make no public mention of civilian casualties?

No, but no need to snub a foreign head of state to score points with an extreme faction either. I'm not arguing that Harris failed to bring about peace in the Middle East, just that her dealings with Netanyahu were less than adroit or politically astute.

Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations. Maybe you're right. But maybe it was a message to Israel that they shouldn't expect us to rubber-stamp civilian casualties no matter how horrific.

You can't have it both ways. If she was "sending a message" by not being present at Netanyahu's congressional appearance, then it was deliberate choice and therefore a snub by definition. If I don't attend my best friend's wedding because I'm in the ICU, that's not a snub. If I don't attend because I don't like his new haircut, and make it clear to everyone that's why I'm not attending, that's a snub. It doesn't matter how bad his haircut is or how many people agree with me that it's awful, it's still a snub.

Quote:I guess time will tell if this was the right approach or not.

Agreed that time will tell. She'll surprise me if she gains more votes than she loses by taking sides against the pro-Israeli lobbies.

Quote:But I appreciate our administration commenting on these civilian casualties.

Biden has already done that, and much more diplomatically. Harris' actions were redundant, and more harsh than necessary.

(07-29-2024 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  *edit* I'm hardly an extreme faction. I generally side with Israel's approach to this conflict and am no fan of Harris. But I appreciate our administration commenting on these civilian casualties.

It was the time/place, not the comments. I agree with the comments - if made privately or in a different context.

Perhaps the time/place was a calculated decision and not simply an off-the-cuff stumble. Who knows. I understand what you are saying here and you certainly could be right.

I just don't think it's such an obvious screw-up without knowing all the details.

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations.

But a pretty good guess.

(07-29-2024 02:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations.

But a pretty good guess.

So the plan had ZERO to do with a diplomatic strategy and EVERYTHING to do with appealing to the anti-Israel crowd. OK. Maybe.

Everybody likes their own opinions/guesses!

(07-29-2024 02:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 02:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations.

But a pretty good guess.

So the plan had ZERO to do with a diplomatic strategy and EVERYTHING to do with appealing to the anti-Israel crowd. OK. Maybe.

Everybody likes their own opinions/guesses!

False dichotomy.

(07-29-2024 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:19 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  That's a different subject. As I understood you, you didn't ask me how to solve the world's problems, you asked me what Harris should do "in this situation" which I took to mean Netanyahu's visit. That's the question I'm answering.

I was more asking what should be done with the currently Israel/Hamas conflict. Should we be publicly supporting whatever Israel does and make no public mention of civilian casualties?

No, but no need to snub a foreign head of state to score points with an extreme faction either. I'm not arguing that Harris failed to bring about peace in the Middle East, just that her dealings with Netanyahu were less than adroit or politically astute.

Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations. Maybe you're right. But maybe it was a message to Israel that they shouldn't expect us to rubber-stamp civilian casualties no matter how horrific.

You can't have it both ways. If she was "sending a message" by not being present at Netanyahu's congressional appearance, then it was deliberate choice and therefore a snub by definition. If I don't attend my best friend's wedding because I'm in the ICU, that's not a snub. If I don't attend because I don't like his new haircut, and make it clear to everyone that's why I'm not attending, that's a snub. It doesn't matter how bad his haircut is or how many people agree with me that it's awful, it's still a snub.

Quote:I guess time will tell if this was the right approach or not.

Agreed that time will tell. She'll surprise me if she gains more votes than she loses by taking sides against the pro-Israeli lobbies.

Quote:But I appreciate our administration commenting on these civilian casualties.

Biden has already done that, and much more diplomatically. Harris' actions were redundant, and more harsh than necessary.

The domestic Jewish vote bloc seems strangely resistant to issues involving Israel.

The showing of no reduction in support by the Jewish American bloc to the Democrats during Obama 1 and 2, and even later is seemingly testament to that somewhat strong tie even when subject to rather stringent anti Israeli sentiment.

Coupled with the pivotal nature of the Arab vote in MN, WI, and MI, I would weigh that is worth losing some votes in NY and Cali.

Notwithstanding if the action was a flub or not.

(07-29-2024 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2024 01:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I was more asking what should be done with the currently Israel/Hamas conflict. Should we be publicly supporting whatever Israel does and make no public mention of civilian casualties?

No, but no need to snub a foreign head of state to score points with an extreme faction either. I'm not arguing that Harris failed to bring about peace in the Middle East, just that her dealings with Netanyahu were less than adroit or politically astute.

Bolded is simply your guess as to her motivations. Maybe you're right. But maybe it was a message to Israel that they shouldn't expect us to rubber-stamp civilian casualties no matter how horrific.

You can't have it both ways. If she was "sending a message" by not being present at Netanyahu's congressional appearance, then it was deliberate choice and therefore a snub by definition. If I don't attend my best friend's wedding because I'm in the ICU, that's not a snub. If I don't attend because I don't like his new haircut, and make it clear to everyone that's why I'm not attending, that's a snub. It doesn't matter how bad his haircut is or how many people agree with me that it's awful, it's still a snub.

Quote:I guess time will tell if this was the right approach or not.

Agreed that time will tell. She'll surprise me if she gains more votes than she loses by taking sides against the pro-Israeli lobbies.

Quote:But I appreciate our administration commenting on these civilian casualties.

Biden has already done that, and much more diplomatically. Harris' actions were redundant, and more harsh than necessary.

The domestic Jewish vote bloc seems strangely resistant to issues involving Israel.

The showing of no reduction in support by the Jewish American bloc to the Democrats during Obama 1 and 2, and even later is seemingly testament to that somewhat strong tie even when subject to rather stringent anti Israeli sentiment.

Coupled with the pivotal nature of the Arab vote in MN, WI, and MI, I would weigh that is worth losing some votes in NY and Cali.

Notwithstanding if the action was a flub or not.

I don't agree that Jewish and pro-Israeli are equivalent. With respect, that's an ethnic stereotype.

A large number of pro-Israel voters tend to vote GOP, so maybe Harris has nothing to lose by antagonizing them. How many swing voters, though?

NY and California are already in the bag. She could say or do just about anything with no worries about their electoral votes, though of course some Congressional seats could be at stake.