This is what happens when you play the I Support The Current Thing Game. Buzzwords and talking points and gobbledygook that mean nothing but make sure that people know you “care.”
FWIW there's been a big letter-writing campaign in Portland, Merkley's power base. People are organizing postcard-writing parties, sending him cards demanding that he demand a ceasefire, end all US funding to Israel, retroactively prevent Zionism, etc. So this is maybe a bone-throw to those people?
Strictly speaking he doesn't describe any of those things as conditions of a ceasefire; he lists those as things that a ceasefire "and the following negotiations" must accomplish. Still unrealistic, obviously, but in a different way that makes his call for a ceasefire not-empty-on-its-face.
Loving the more frequent updates Jeff. I get more of a roving reporter vibe for these, rather than the Sunday edition columnist vibe of yore, but the same high quality (and snark)
I agree. So many people are clueless. Merkley shouldn’t be. This tribalism nonsense has been going on for years. We should keep our noses out of their business completely.
Personally, I am in favor of a ceasefire (according to the traditional understanding of the term): Hamas should (at the very least) release the civilian hostages and both sides should stop shooting. Realistically speaking, such a pause could only be expected to be temporary, but the first side to start shooting again would be considered to be the one which has broken the ceasefire. It seems like we might be getting taste of this at the moment with the current hostage return and four day humanitarian pause, but that's insufficient to even properly be a ceasefire and I still worry that the hostilities will start early and/or that not all of the ~50 hostages that are promised will actually be returned.
I consider calls for "ceasefire" which only apply to Israel and which do not demand the release of civilian hostages to be a completely bogus redefinition of terms. But Senator Merkley's demand that Hamas lay down arms and political power as a prerequisite for a ceasefire is equally loony.
Except for Merkley, demands for a "ceasefire" are aimed at only Israel. I don't know how this is going to go over, but I keep coming back to this Kevin D. Williamson quote:
"The Israeli forces should be the least of the mortal worries afflicting those Hamas killers—if the Palestinians had any self-respect, it would be them taking the lead in putting an end to the power of these monsters, who are homicidal maniacs when it comes to the Jews but who haven’t done the Palestinians a lick of good, either. But, unhappily, the one almost universally shared assumption of modern diplomatic discourse is that the Palestinian Arabs are something less than whole and complete human beings, that they are not advanced enough to be true moral actors because they do not have the strength of national character to bear the moral weight that falls exclusively upon the shoulders of the Israelis and the peoples of the other liberal democratic states. The Palestinians, according to this line of thought, just bounce around like windup toys, and only the Israelis, the Americans, and the Europeans can be expected to behave like responsible adults. Nobody ever puts it exactly that way, of course, but that’s the upshot. The Palestinians are treated by their so-called advocates and benefactors as though they were a nation of people who have no agency and, hence, no responsibility."
The obvious issue with a ceasefire is that Israel is hammering Hamas and Gaza. If both sides were slugging it out, there'd be rationale and motivation for a ceasefire. "We need a breather." Here, only one side needs a breather and hence a call for a ceasefire is a non sequitur. (I feel like I am using that word correctly but not sure.)
This is what happens when you play the I Support The Current Thing Game. Buzzwords and talking points and gobbledygook that mean nothing but make sure that people know you “care.”
FWIW there's been a big letter-writing campaign in Portland, Merkley's power base. People are organizing postcard-writing parties, sending him cards demanding that he demand a ceasefire, end all US funding to Israel, retroactively prevent Zionism, etc. So this is maybe a bone-throw to those people?
"In a truly depressing way, much of the progressive left has become like the furniture in Pee Wee’s Playhouse."
Wish I thought of this. In an insane world, at least I can still laugh.
Strictly speaking he doesn't describe any of those things as conditions of a ceasefire; he lists those as things that a ceasefire "and the following negotiations" must accomplish. Still unrealistic, obviously, but in a different way that makes his call for a ceasefire not-empty-on-its-face.
To answer your implied question Jeff, yes the people of Portland really are that dumb.
Loving the more frequent updates Jeff. I get more of a roving reporter vibe for these, rather than the Sunday edition columnist vibe of yore, but the same high quality (and snark)
Just more performative bullshit by unserious people.
I agree. So many people are clueless. Merkley shouldn’t be. This tribalism nonsense has been going on for years. We should keep our noses out of their business completely.
Personally, I am in favor of a ceasefire (according to the traditional understanding of the term): Hamas should (at the very least) release the civilian hostages and both sides should stop shooting. Realistically speaking, such a pause could only be expected to be temporary, but the first side to start shooting again would be considered to be the one which has broken the ceasefire. It seems like we might be getting taste of this at the moment with the current hostage return and four day humanitarian pause, but that's insufficient to even properly be a ceasefire and I still worry that the hostilities will start early and/or that not all of the ~50 hostages that are promised will actually be returned.
I consider calls for "ceasefire" which only apply to Israel and which do not demand the release of civilian hostages to be a completely bogus redefinition of terms. But Senator Merkley's demand that Hamas lay down arms and political power as a prerequisite for a ceasefire is equally loony.
Except for Merkley, demands for a "ceasefire" are aimed at only Israel. I don't know how this is going to go over, but I keep coming back to this Kevin D. Williamson quote:
"The Israeli forces should be the least of the mortal worries afflicting those Hamas killers—if the Palestinians had any self-respect, it would be them taking the lead in putting an end to the power of these monsters, who are homicidal maniacs when it comes to the Jews but who haven’t done the Palestinians a lick of good, either. But, unhappily, the one almost universally shared assumption of modern diplomatic discourse is that the Palestinian Arabs are something less than whole and complete human beings, that they are not advanced enough to be true moral actors because they do not have the strength of national character to bear the moral weight that falls exclusively upon the shoulders of the Israelis and the peoples of the other liberal democratic states. The Palestinians, according to this line of thought, just bounce around like windup toys, and only the Israelis, the Americans, and the Europeans can be expected to behave like responsible adults. Nobody ever puts it exactly that way, of course, but that’s the upshot. The Palestinians are treated by their so-called advocates and benefactors as though they were a nation of people who have no agency and, hence, no responsibility."
The obvious issue with a ceasefire is that Israel is hammering Hamas and Gaza. If both sides were slugging it out, there'd be rationale and motivation for a ceasefire. "We need a breather." Here, only one side needs a breather and hence a call for a ceasefire is a non sequitur. (I feel like I am using that word correctly but not sure.)
Jeff, he is from Oregon on the left coast! 🤪