John Kirk

Father, Husband, Co-Founder/CEO @Cnverg, Startup Attorney

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

#DontTweetSecurities

https://t.co/BIshnaQKxq

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@EndWokeness Funny how the prompts need to be "dug" to provide current data... #chatgpt4 vs @grok

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@cb_doge Catstronaut. Only prompt. Very impressive output with minimal detail

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@LinusEkenstam Impressive image/prompt comprehension

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@elonmusk Streisand Effecting their way straight to the Ballot Box

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@elonmusk Willy Wonka time

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

LMAO

[IncomeSharks @IncomeSharks]

@unusual_whales Look at @jimcramer pumping $CRAMER coin. Lock him up!

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@ODSinitiative @JustLuai Who is working on a similar initiative, but with an emphasis on reality of the current facts? (eg 1SS with Israel extending citizenship to all with borders or Israel extending the rest, but full citizenship/voting)?

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

Trying to discuss this often over the past few months with people on both sides of the issues/solutions. Is there currently anyone supporting 1SS with annex/citizenship for all under Israel, or who has written about that position? I'm having a hard time understanding why it's hard to find that concept being discussed earnestly.

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@TheFlagGuy_ @CensoredMen Doesn't sound realistic. What are your thoughts on annexation + elections?

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@alc_anthro @Ashiq18517177 @OnlinePalEng This sounds like single State, full annex, citizenship + vote. Curious to learn more about where this stands in recent history (thought leaders etc)

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@steveabril11 @the Perfect area to focus on in a reconstruction.

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

Israel was a people. The nation was Judea and the Zionism movement wanted to restore the people of Israel to a historical homeland (which after they were driven out by the Romans, was named Palestine). When the Second Temple was destroyed, it was Palestine. There's the historical. The Nation of Israel was established in 1948. It was victorious against those who challenged it. That's why it is Israel, and not Palestine. Here's your dilemma though: the Palestinians are closer historically and genetically to the original Israelites than 98% or modern day Israelis. That doesn't change the reality though, Israel the Nation won its sovereignty, and is the sovereign. That's where the impasse has been for 75+ years. The territory has been won, but a defacto apartheid state is what exists. Nobody can agree on what a Palestinian State will look like, but Israel wants one as well because it does not want to annex all the territory it has occupied since it would then require extension of citizenship to the Palestinian people, and then it's no longer a majority Jewish State.

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@Obi_Wan6 @thesaviour It's a city, and it's ancient. It existed as a city before the State of Israel, and the Biblical Israel as well. Nice try

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

@DouglasFis70489 @ChrisVanHollen @POTUS You realize why this is such a bad analogy, right?

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

Plenty of propaganda. Cherry picking the worst on both sides will lead to any interpretation. I've seen plenty of vocal Israeli support for genocide, full extermination, war crimes etc every day. I write it off as extremists or just overly passionate people venting online. The reality - as seen by the 100k people fleeing with nowhere to go this week, plus the fact that there are 1.4M people in Rafah while on 10/6 there were 300k is that there are over 1M people who demonstrably are trying to flee the active combat zones (and already have since they were first told to move South at the start).

There will be plenty of people who will remain even if given an alternative, mostly because they are ready to fight. That is why it is so important to get those who are trying to flee removed to safety: if the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants are those willing to fight to the death or become martyrs for the cause, it is much easier to mount a total war campaign against them, because all efforts to minimize civilian casualties were taken.

And it's not speculative that the inhabitants of Rafah right now will leave when they have somewhere safe to go: just look at the math. Over 1M of them fled to Rafah from elsewhere in Gaza already, they're not going to "dig in" when given an alternative

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

Hamas never was going to do it because the people especially after being displaced to Rafah are just another tier of hostages. I'm talking about what refugee camp plan was approved by Israel and the logistics. I might not have seen all, but the only one I did read in a credible source was that the war cabinet position was that the US and unspecified Arab partners would need to implement a plan (and fund/staff it). That's why it was rejected by Biden as not being a plan, and that failing to make a plan and then look to move on Rafah without one would be a red line (which is exactly where we are months later)

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

I've yet to see any articles about a Plan that the War Cabinet approved other than one that indicated the US would need to create a plan and then pay for it and administer it. I might be missing all the news, but that's all I've seen. And the general opinion is that is the only plan Ben-Gvir wanted ("you do it") because he has a very different plan for the Palestinian people

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

If a poll was presented that the US would actually increase support to finish off Hamas, and focus on reconstruction, but there needed to be additional aid, assistance, and provisions of refugee camps to evacuate the population of Rafah prior to such a large campaign (but it would have the US support) do you think the public opinion would want to follow that course, or just run the Rafah campaign immediately? I'm genuinely curious, because that's where the US position most certainly is but of course Bibi has his own considerations to the Israeli public that will take priority

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

He's looking at Rafah as a red-line to show how he's serious far more than just appealing to the base. The Saudi plan and an economic future/path for statehood are very important to Biden's legacy, and Rafah will have consequences far beyond the election.

A humanitarian plan for the people of Rafah prior to a full campaign against Hamas (which Biden would support) is the sticking point here. Netanyahu's cabinet had hardliners who do not care for a Rafah plan, because Ben-Gvir's plan is to permanently remove the Palestinian population of Gaza and Settle the area. Biden is opposed to fascists inside Israel as detrimental for long term peace, and Bibi is in the middle and now Rafah is the turning point.

Hamas cannot exist as an extremist organization in any capacity. Ben-Gvir and the Jewish Power movement cannot be allowed to jeopardize long term prospects for peace, as US policy believes those will lead to condition that make it impossible to support Israel (especially at the UN) without insurmountable harm to the interests of the American people.

Drawing a line on getting a humanitarian solution for the people of Rafah prior to a final campaign against Hamas is a large part of that

[John Kirk @jakirk42]

Yes that is hypocrisy and it is cheesy clear that the delusional thought that Hamas would become political was not realistic. There are no easy solutions for a One/Two State scenario. The radicals on both sides want to implement a From the River to the Sea policy and each are led by religious fundamentalists.

The militant rise of Hamas leading up to 10/7 was mirrored my the rise of extremists like Ben-Gvir in Israel, and while he may no longer be a member of a terrorist organization his political party is on the extreme end just like Hamas.

They don't share the same tactics though, and when radical ideology leads to confrontation militarily, the outcome of the war will shape what follows. Hamas cannot be allowed to remain a power, and it will lose. But there are still millions of people who will just lead to the next iteration of Hamas unless they are given an alternative.

Biden's belief that this is something possible through a Saudi partnership and recognition of Israel, as well as a path for a Palestinian State is the current US policy. I've seen so many fail, I don't know if it will work, but I hope that would be a path for peace. How Rafah is handled from a humanitarian perspective will greatly shape that outcome.

Hamas cannot remain. Neither can the far-right in Israel. It doesn't matter if there is growing popular support, continuing or expanding a defacto apartheid state will not succeed. Nor will forcing out the people of Gaza. The only way the world will get behind something like that will be full annexation, full citizenship, and full voting for all the people of Israel.

That One-State solution is the most democratic and therefore globally supported, but it is not realistic to expect either the Israeli public or the Palestinians to get behind that type of solution.

I do not think for one minute that Biden drawing a redline and showing that he means it is as simple of a calculus as just the Rafah campaign or finishing Hamas, and I hope that Netanyahu realizes there is much more at stake as well. Only time will tell