Rottcodd

Seriously - how can any person be so brazenly and thoroughly warped?

I can only assume that, like so many of the fabulously wealthy, she's profoundly mentally ill, such that she really can't grasp the enormous human cost that fulfilling her petty, selfish and ultimately pointless desires would entail. It can only be the case that she genuinely can't grasp the fact that the millions of people who would be made to suffer or die for this are actual people - actual beings with lives and loved ones who are every bit as important to them as hers are to her.

It's either that or she's genuinely evil, in the purest sense of the word, and on a scale the world has rarely seen.

So which is it Ms. Adelson? Are you insane or simply evil? There's absolutely no doubt - none at all - that it's one or the other.

I don't think we can say, since it's possible (likely?) that his premises aren't even true.

Israel has already trotted out all of the same "mistakes were made" rhetoric, and certainly if they haven't already, they will state that they'll try to learn from it to make changes. So there's really no difference as far as that goes

The biggest difference I see between the incidents is only relevant to Americans - then it was our government controlling the narrative at home, and now it's a foreign government, failing to control the narrative abroad.

I have little doubt that the narrative about Gaza that Israelis are being fed now is roughly the same as the narrative Americans were being fed about Iraq and Afghanistan, which at least leaves the possibility that the actual underlying realities were and are also roughly the same. And if so, what Kirby is actually doing is not comparing the incidents and responses in and of themselves, but essentially just playing off of the differences between the version the people at home get and the version outsiders get - depending on Americans actually believing the American rhetoric then, even as they don't believe the Israeli rhetoric now. That's really the only way you end up with the notion that America sincerely did regret it and admit to it and set about making changes, rather than just, as Israel is doing now (from an outside perspective) paying lip service to all of that.

So what he's actually possibly demonstrating, certainly inadvertently, is that the US was just as full of shit then as Israel is now.

What an awful list.

It's basically "the hottest more or less 'dystopian' books of the last twenty years. And oh yeah - 1984, Brave New World and The Handmaid's Tale, just to pad it out."

Obviously missing We, The Road, Fahrenheit 451 and Roadside Picnic, at the very least.

Translation: the Supreme Court cobbled together some specious pseudo-justification for ruling in favor of the ideologically-driven and not coincidentally self-serving preconceptions of the justices and their wealthy cronies and patrons.

So basically the US government is a gigantic Trump - rising up in self-righteous fury at the very idea that anyone might dare to charge them for the crimes they've brazenly committed.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be so morally bankrupt.

Clearly, they know that what they're doing in Gaza is evil, and they know that the only hope they have of evading the entirely justified condemnation of the rest of the world is to hide it.

History will not judge them kindly. No matter what they do, they're not going to be able to hide the evidence of their evil forever.

No surprise there.

Israel's actions in Gaza are morally indefensible.

So its defenders cannot, and for the most part don't even bother to try to, sincerely engage with criticism.

Instead, they rely on diversions, misrepresentations, character assassination, censorship, intimidation, harassment and violence, simply because that's all they have.

When ones actions can be justified, one can counter opposition with argument or persuasion.

When ones actions cannot be justified, one must rely on diversions, lies, intimidation, harassment and violence.

It seems to me that the most likely explanation - since there's no notable difference between their campaigns on the surface - is that Elfreth's simply lying, and if she's elected she'll reveal herself as another Sinema or Manchin - another supposed Democrat who will blatantly work for the benefit of the Republicans. And that's exactly why AIPAC (and a number of other groups and individuals who customarily support Republicans) are supporting her - to them, it's not seemingly arbitrarily one Democrat over another more or less identical Democrat, but a fake Democrat over a real one.

Gosh - who would've thought that people might have a negative view of an explicitly elitist and xenophobic ideology bent on the violent appropriation of land and the wholesale slaughter of any of the "filthy animals" currently living there who might dare to oppose them?

Naturally.

There are two main ways in which people can try to further a political position they've taken - they can either argue for the position or they can attempt to discredit those who argue against it.

If the position they're trying to further is so illogical or immoral that they can't frame any arguments in its favor, then attempting to discredit its opponents is the only thing they have left.