Sadly, even if Israel completely eliminates HAMAS as it is, doing so will get someone else to point out, "See what Israelis do? They slaughter our people wholesale!" and a Hamas 2.0 will pop up.

Israel will again act like Joshua, and Hamas 3.0 will appear.

No.

If we are to avoid a successor to Hamas, some outside entity MUST take over administration of the region.

The only viable option would be something under an international mandate, and even then, it needs to be some organization that represents virtually every nation on Earth.

Someone like the United Nations.

HOWEVER, Israel supporters say that's not an option because the U.N. is anti-Semitic.

So, what are we left with?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 11:31 am: Edit

Since you ask, Jga, the President yesterday declared - not suggested, not recommended, but declared - that, “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too.” He further declared that the Palestinians will, "...be resettled in areas where they can live a beautiful life... [Egypt and Jordan] say they're not going to accept [the Palestinians]. I say they will, but I think other countries will accept also."

Q. Can he legally do this under U.S. law?
A. Yes. It's not going to require Congressional action. The President can force the issue under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, as Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Q. Can he legally do this under international law?
A. Legally? No. Do it anyway? Yes. The fact that it violates international law won't matter, because (1) the U.S. has a veto in the U.N. Security Council and (2) the International Criminal Court is effectively toothless unless the President were to travel somewhere willing to arrest him (extremely unlikely). In effect, it's the same as the ICC indictment of Putin and Netanyahu: unenforceable.

Q. Will this put our troops in harm's way?
A. Yes. A U.S. annexation of Gaza will require American boots on the ground. Israel isn't going to do it for the U.S. and then just hand over Gaza (particularly given the number of members in Netanyahu's ruling coalition who believe it is Israeli territory); if the President wants it to be U.S. territory, it's going to be our soldiers sent over to fight to make that happen. And that's not the end of it; our troops - indeed, our citizens - anywhere else in the world will become more of a target for attacks than they already are.

Q. Can he really move the Palestinians out without, well, killing them?
A. Likely not. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. will not accept them as refugees, and if the U.S. tries to force them across the border(s), there will be massacres.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 02:10 pm: Edit

I thought his "beautiful new housing somewhere else" plan was unworkable, but until he actually starts trying to accomplish something, about as relevant as renaming the Gulf of Mexico. He cannot force the Gazans to go until somewhere is willing to take them. Maybe he can convince Saudi Arabia or Egypt to sell him a new Gaza Strip out of artillery range of Israel. Until he does, none of this matters. Let's say he does. Then what? Gazans don't want to live peaceful lives in beautiful new housing. They want to destroy Israel. He is assuming somewhat naively that "people of normal logic" would rather have a beautiful new neighborhood than live in squalor within attacking range of Israel. Now, he just might make it work if "New Gaza" includes a shipyard able to produce missile corvettes and a ballistic missile factory or maybe a long-range drone factory.

The only solution to use enough force (not all military) to remove the radical element from the Palestinians everywhere. Inspectors from the new agency US BEHAVE OR WE KILL YOU (USBOWKY) would make sure there were no radical hate-Israel lessons in schools, mosques, movie theaters, radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, books, magazines, and so forth. Then, 50 years later, you might have a population willing to enjoy a good life instead of spending their efforts, blood, and treasure to launch yet another attack on Israel. One could argue this should have been done 50 years ago.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 02:41 pm: Edit

The U.S. State Department has approved the potential sale of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Corp's to Egypt, the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said on Tuesday.

How exactly this falls into the general venue of "ensuring the security of our national defense supply chains", I've no idea.

THE INFORMATION POSTED ABOVE IS MISLEADING. NO ONE HAS APPROVED, OR EVEN PROPOSED, SELLING THE COMPANIES TO EGYPT. WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS THE SALE OF "Northrop Grumman's AN/TPS-78 Long Range Radar" AND A PROGRAM BY LOCKHEED MARTIN TO MODERNIZE SOME EGYPTIAN GUNBOATS. GIVEN THAT THE US HAS SOLD TONS OF TANKS AND FIGHTERS TO EGYPT, ONE HAS TO ASSUME THIS IS CONTINUING SOMETHING THAT WAS WORKING.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 02:47 pm: Edit

As a side note: it's worth noting that the diplomatic progress that the President made during his last term with regard to relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel were always conditioned by Saudi Arabia upon continued U.S. support for a Palestinian state. If in fact the U.S. has abandoned that position - which rather looks to be the case - then we're back to square one on Saudi-Israeli relations.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 02:50 pm: Edit

The TR-3 upgrades for the F-35 have been delayed until at least late 2026, per a report to Congress from the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Jessica, see update to your misleading post of 2:41.

It is unclear that the us has abandoned support for a Palestinian state. There are nuances inside nuances here, and no one is more likely that Trump to make some kind of deal. He often says things like "I want to buy Mount Everest" then settles for diplomatic relations with the abominable snowman.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Thank you for the clarification, Steve.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 09:20 pm: Edit

It should be noted that the clarification SVC noted above has been a defining characteristic of DJTrump for decades.

It is simply a negotiating ploy that he has used successfully for decades.

It is not a character flaw, or a sign of declining cognitive function.

It is literally an opening statement a business person uses to let the other parties in an open market know that there is a deal to be made.

Sadly, too many people listening in wrongly assume that they know everything, when in actual fact, they know nothing about what is happening.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Language used; "Riviera" and "Resorts."

Basis for an economy with "Hope?"

(Maybe it's just me, but this is starting to feel like we're venturing into `Gator territory. Webmom? If you think so as well, please delete this post with my apologies. Thank you.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 11:05 pm: Edit

We have been in gator territory for two weeks. What fun! I’m trying to keep things to facts. We will see how it goes. Feel free to argue facts, but not polemics. Don’t make stuff up and justify your arguments.

Trump withdrew the US from the U.N. human rights commission.

Trump signed a war order to reduce Iran to a parking lot if they assassinate him. Not sure it’s legal as he would not be president at that point.

Trump announced a plan for the US to own and rebuild the Gaza Strip, turning it into a resort name McGaza Villages. According to Greg Gutfeld, the first new business to open will be a gentleman’s exotic dance club named THE GAZA STRIP. Many think that since EVERYONE hates tTrump’s plan the real point is “well, have you clowns got another idea? You haven’t come up with one so far!”

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 12:52 am: Edit

Someone might want to check out the Corinth Canal in Greece. Cut through solid rock, the canal gorge is hundreds of feet deep, with near vertical walls. It could serve as a model for the Grande Canal along the Mexican border. It is four miles long.

The border is 3800 feet above sea level at El Paso Tx, and 1398 feet at Luke, Az, three feet at Calexico, 138 feet at Andrade, California, and 4,666 feet at Antelope Wells, NM.
It is 1,954 miles long.

A sea level canal would not be free flowing. Due to tidal effects there could be fifty feet of difference between Atlantic and Pacific. This would send high velocity rip tides back and forth every six hours. A tidal lock would prevent this.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 01:15 am: Edit

A Nimitz class CVN is 252 feet wide. So we would build the Grande Canale to at least 265 feet. We could arrange for a mile-long passing lane 550 feet wide (330 feet at water level) every hundred miles. For much of the length of the canal it would only need to be 150 feet wide as far as water goes with the deck hanging over the edges. Obviously in mountainous areas the gorge would have to the full 550 feet wide.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 08:20 am: Edit

Dunnohow wide the Panamax plus freighters and super tankers are. ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FEET.

In any case, I don't think there are any border mountains that couldn't be whittled away. I'm just a contractor, and I've seen thousands of tons of explosives used to cut through hard rock. I actually had to get the WV State Fire Marshals office to send a guy to threaten the blasters with all kinds of stuff to get them to behave in Shepherdstown WV. I've also done tunneling work in New Mexico. Removing a few dozen acres of a hillside in Atlanta...

Seriously, blasting is actually pretty routine. Drill some deep holes, pack them with ANFO, some booster and a detonator (so a chunk of PETN or dynamite is set off by the detonator, which gets the ANFO going), cover with some overburden, and FIRE IN THE HOLE!

You could even establish a school for equipment operators, truck drivers and such. So you go in as a clueless kid, and are taught how to drive a wheeled loader, bobcat, pan scraper, forklift, backhoe, small crane, bulldozer, grader etc.

Places like the Colorado and New Mexico schools of Mines would send students for a semester practicing blasting.

And of course the various military engineer types would do their thing.

It's not digging the ditch; it's all the support stuff like locks, overpasses for vehicles, tow tugs and such that might be a PITA.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 08:40 am: Edit

>> Nimitz class CVN is 252 feet wide

It's worth noting that the Nimitz and Ford class carriers are too large to transit the Panama Canal today. So if one of them needs to move between the Atlantic and Pacific then something like a lengthy trip around South America is probably required.

>> This would send high velocity rip tides back and forth every six hours

I wonder if this could somehow be captured as an energy source, as part of the overall design?


--Mike

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 09:24 am: Edit

>> McGaza Villages

My concern is that, even if the various other significant challenges are overcome, the newly build city would just become a focal point for new violence. So, bombings of buildings, suicide bombers, truck bombers, rockets, etc. The anti-modernity mentality that weaves through much of the ME would probably be quite pleased to see the shiny new Western buildings blown to smithereens. Even if that meant any potential Arab residents would be deprived of the use of the new facilities.

I'm not sure how one could provide adequate security to prevent that.

--Mike

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 09:51 am: Edit

McGaza Villages....

I think I need a McWhiskey on the McRocks.

By Michael F Guntly (Ares) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 09:55 am: Edit

Re: the border, It is 1,954 miles long

If we try to build a nearly 2,000 mile long USA canal, how would we handle the rivers that need to be crossed? Especially since two of them have international repercussions.

Pecos (Texas)
Rio Grande (New Mexico)
Colorado (Arizona/California)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 10:52 am: Edit

Ares: Not really an issue. The first half of the canal would follow the Rio Grande.

Pecos river enters the Rio Grande at a point 1120 feet above sea level. We would have to build a weir across the mouth of the Pecos so it doesn’t drain into the 1120 foot Grande Canale Gorge, but that would produce a waterfall tourist attraction greater than Niagara. Not a problem.

Rio Grande isn’t a problem. At the point the Canal turns west, there would be another weir and the world’s highest waterfall at 3880 feet. Tourists galore!

Colorado River is not an issue. At the point it would intersect the Canal the river is bone dry due to agricultural water extraction. The part of the river in Mexico has been dry for decades. The Colorado would only be three feet higher than the Canal, anyway. You might have problems with rip tidal surges, but a modest weir would fix that.

Better question is what to do with the removed rock. We could use it to build artificial islands and extend our territorial waters. The removed soil could be used to improve farmland and removed sand would be sold to the concrete industry. Did you know that sand is actually a rare commodity these days?

I don’t think we would need much security. Meat packing plants could dump waste into the canal to attract sharks to patrol the canal against swimmers. Who is going to rappel 4000 feet down into shark infested waters and then climb a smooth rock wall on the other side?

Ship transit fees would pay for the whole thing in 14 years and seven months.

And mankind would have finally built something you can see from space!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 11:11 am: Edit

Mike E. Actually the new locks on the Panama Canal could theoretically handle a Nimitz, but really cannot. The neo-panamax limit is 168 feet while a CVN is 134 at the water line. Length is 1201 feet while CVN is 1092 overall. The problem is that the flight deck overhangs by 59 feet on each side, and various canal structures would get demolished. Maneuvering through Gatun Lake could get really interesting. Water depth would get interesting. You would have to off load the aircraft, most of the fuel, and half of the crew and even then have two feet between the ship’s bottom and the concrete.

By Michael F Guntly (Ares) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Not an engineer here. I am having trouble visualizing this, so if you could elaborate further or answer some questions I have, it would help me.

So taking these one at a time.

1. a weir across the mouth of the Pecos
weir - a low dam built across a river to raise the level of water upstream or regulate its flow.

Would the water back up behind the weir forming a reservoir?

Would the water eventually build up and overflow the weir (or its release be regulated), whereby the water drops 1120 feet into the canal because it has no where else to go (the mentioned waterfall for tourism)?

Would this mean the flow from the Pecos would not be added to the Rio Grande (on the other side of the canal), decreasing the water level of the Rio Grande downstream and affecting everyone relying on that water?

2. a weir across the Rio Grande in New Mexico

Apart from the questions above, since the Rio Grande north of the canal would be falling 3880 feet into the canal, would this mean there would be no Rio Grande River flow beyond the canal, apart from tributaries flowing into the river basin on the south side of the canal?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Yes, that is what a weir is.

The weir would be the level of the original water so no real reservoir.

Water would overflow the weir at the same rate it currently flows.

The Rio Grande would be replaced by or turned into the canal. It would be in exactly the sample place, just lower. There would no longer be a Rio Grande, just a Canal Grande. So the Pecos flow that used to go into the Rio Grande because it would no longer exist. The water would go into the Canale Grande that replaced it.

By Michael F Guntly (Ares) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Then I believe I understood the weirs correctly.

But it seems to me that everywhere downstream from the Rio Grande weir would be impacted by the lack of fresh water (since it is flowing into the Canal Grande) including El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville on the US side and Ciudad Juarez, Reynosa, and Matamoros on the Mexican side.

My assumption is that the Canal Grande would be significantly salt water, especially closer to the Gulf of Mexico.

And where would the water come from to fill the Canal Grande between the Rio Grande weir and the Colorado weir? Especially when 7 states are already disputing the division of the Colorado River water. I'm assuming ocean water from both ends of the canal.

So the cities previously mentioned, along with any farming/ranching currently using Rio Grande water would be out of luck.

What mistakes have I made?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 07, 2025 - 12:58 am: Edit

Two big ones.

First, there is very little water in the Rio Grande south of El Paso to the Pecos. The Rio G in that stretch is thirty feet wide and knee deep. Illegals just wade across every day. Most of the municipalities get water from deep wells. Pecos water could be sent south by a pipeline if needed, which it really isn’t, much.

Second, The Colorado River is not an issue as there is no water in it at the point the dry riverbed crosses the Canale. The Canale would have no effect on the states that use the Colorado as no water from it gets to the Gulf of Cortez today and none would go into the Canale.

By Michael F Guntly (Ares) on Friday, February 07, 2025 - 10:33 am: Edit

My stated concerns stand resolved.

Next question.
Would the salt water in Canal Grande (2000 miles long) leach into surrounding ground formations, at whatever level below ground level, and "contaminate" aquafiers?