|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? Show nested quote +But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —
If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot.
Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland?
|
Well yeah but after the first two attempts failed, they're 50 years past the best chance they had at getting their homes back, and they're just getting in a worse spot year after year they should reevaluate their options.
|
On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland?
Just curious, if you were Palestinian do you think you would agree that the US supporting your oppression was in your best interest?
If not, what would you do about it?
EDIT: Also, I'd note that winning the revolutionary war wasn't a sure thing by far. It was a popular (and probably more evidence based) opinion that we couldn't win. The people who fought, fought what was perceived as impossible odds. So while the circumstances helped lead to victory, it was not the wisdom at the time that those facts would ensure a win.
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 08 2016 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
Israel was built in something of an unfortunate place. Not that they had too much of a choice; it's hard to carve out an independent nation in the postwar world. But I'm sure a lasting stability would do them some good.
As I said in my amended post, it's naive to assume that regional stability is an appealing prospect to everyone in Israel. There are many people and groups who benefit from an indefinite state of warfare (and not only materially).
On December 08 2016 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
I was actually referring to the "Palestinians who want to live in peace" here though. As it stands, they have to make peace with their significantly stronger neighbor if they want peace. Even if that might involve some degree of lost autonomy.
There is a price to pay for being a weak nation.
Well, that's the wonderful advantage about terrorism. Being asymmetrical warfare by definition, it avoids the pitfalls that classically occur when a "weak nation" fights a "strong nation".
That would be all well and good if we took peace in the literal sense. But being the stronger power in negotiations, Israel would have no reason to grant anything else but that. There's no guarantee that the day-to-day lives of Palestinians in the OPT would improve. And since the clashes boil down to who has legitimate claim to power and occupation, it wouldn't solve anything in the long run. The resentment and anger would simply manifest in a different way.
On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though?
A country that believes its existence to be under perpetual threat doesn't care about such things.
On December 08 2016 13:32 Sermokala wrote:
Well yeah but after the first two attempts failed, they're 50 years past the best chance they had at getting their homes back, and they're just getting in a worse spot year after year they should reevaluate their options.
It's a bit naive to think that this is merely about "going back home" (and that's quite a powerful idea in itself).
|
On December 08 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland? Just curious, if you were Palestinian do you think you would agree that the US supporting your oppression was in your best interest? If not, what would you do about it?
I would not support it. But ultimately, knowing what I know now about how this situation plays out in many analogous situations all around the world ("coexistence" between a regional superpower and a weaker group), I'd accept that there's really fuck all that can be done about it (you can't really have true independence from your next-door neighbor that is a lot stronger than you). That being so, giving up independence and working with what you have is the best way forward. That's a situation that you can work with, given that Israel isn't one of the countries known for ethnic cleansing (unless you ask a ridiculously biased commentator perhaps).
On December 08 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland? EDIT: Also, I'd note that winning the revolutionary war wasn't a sure thing by far. It was a popular (and probably more evidence based) opinion that we couldn't win. The people who fought, fought what was perceived as impossible odds. So while the circumstances helped lead to victory, it was not the wisdom at the time that those facts would ensure a win.
It wasn't impossible in the same way that Palestine beating Israel would be impossible. It was absolutely an uphill battle but more akin to something like Iran vs. the US than the US vs. the Bahamas. One situation is clearly skewed and a victory is unlikely but possible with the right kind of foreign support (France bankrolled the revolution hard enough to get their leader guillotined), the other is just instantly and immediately clear to be impossible.
|
On December 08 2016 13:40 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
Israel was built in something of an unfortunate place. Not that they had too much of a choice; it's hard to carve out an independent nation in the postwar world. But I'm sure a lasting stability would do them some good. As I said in my amended post, it's naive to assume that regional stability is an appealing prospect to everyone in Israel. There are many people and groups who benefit from an indefinite state of warfare (and not only materially). Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
I was actually referring to the "Palestinians who want to live in peace" here though. As it stands, they have to make peace with their significantly stronger neighbor if they want peace. Even if that might involve some degree of lost autonomy.
There is a price to pay for being a weak nation. Well, that's the wonderful advantage about terrorism. Being asymmetrical warfare by definition, it avoids the pitfalls that classically occur when a "weak nation" fights a "strong nation". That would be all well and good if we took peace in the literal sense. But being the stronger power in negotiations, Israel would have no reason to grant anything else but that. There's no guarantee that the day-to-day lives of Palestinians in the OPT would improve. And since the clashes boil down to who has legitimate claim to power and occupation, it wouldn't solve anything in the long run. The resentment and anger would simply manifest in a different way.
I'm sure some want perpetual war, the same some in the US might think we should nuke the Middle East. Doesn't mean it's dominant or that the nation or the government it is likely to have will want to do so.
Resentment will exist and manifest in not altogether pleasant ways. It always does. But all terrorism really does is decentralize the opposition, turning civilians into military targets. Asymmetrical warfare isn't a panacea for being weak. Terrorism won't let Palestine win here either.
|
On December 08 2016 13:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland? Just curious, if you were Palestinian do you think you would agree that the US supporting your oppression was in your best interest? If not, what would you do about it? I would not support it. But ultimately, knowing what I know now about how this situation plays out in many analogous situations all around the world ("coexistence" between a regional superpower and a weaker group), I'd accept that there's really fuck all that can be done about it (you can't really have true independence from your next-door neighbor that is a lot stronger than you). That being so, giving up independence and working with what you have is the best way forward. That's a situation that you can work with, given that Israel isn't one of the countries known for ethnic cleansing (unless you ask a ridiculously biased commentator perhaps).
Well a two-state solution where one state is significantly influenced by the more powerful one, is notably different than a state with a second class citizenry.
If we're talking about a two-state solution I might agree with you, if we're talking about having ~half of the population of a country be powerless over it's own lives, that's just dumb/not sustainable.
EDIT: to your previous post it shouldn't be lost that American weapon manufacturers make billions off of the perpetual conflict, and ending it benefits them in no way.
|
On December 08 2016 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:44 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland? Just curious, if you were Palestinian do you think you would agree that the US supporting your oppression was in your best interest? If not, what would you do about it? I would not support it. But ultimately, knowing what I know now about how this situation plays out in many analogous situations all around the world ("coexistence" between a regional superpower and a weaker group), I'd accept that there's really fuck all that can be done about it (you can't really have true independence from your next-door neighbor that is a lot stronger than you). That being so, giving up independence and working with what you have is the best way forward. That's a situation that you can work with, given that Israel isn't one of the countries known for ethnic cleansing (unless you ask a ridiculously biased commentator perhaps). Well a two-state solution where one state is significantly influenced by the more powerful one, is notably different than a state with a second class citizenry. If we're talking about a two-state solution I might agree with you, if we're talking about having ~half of the population of a country be powerless over it's own lives, that's just dumb/not sustainable. EDIT: to your previous post it shouldn't be lost that American weapon manufacturers make billions off of the perpetual conflict, and ending it benefits them in no way.
Having half the nation be second-class citizenry is honestly much preferable to war. Frankly, if their legal status is the same as citizens, it can usually be resolved through organic evolution of the society. And being second-class citizenry doesn't mean you're powerless, it just means you can't be independent. I won't weigh in on one-state vs two-state here though, because I haven't looked into it enough to give a well-thought-out answer as to which is better.
And yes, there are people who benefit from prolonging war. Doesn't mean you should pin that on the entire country.
|
On December 08 2016 10:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 07:55 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 06:41 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 05:37 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 04:22 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context. The rhetoric was definitely divisive. Suggesting his opposition were reprobates or racists. It was never loudly active, I can give you that. But he's the guy that called Republican Party extremists. Said Republicans will do anything to "rig the system for those at the top." Republican rhetoric was recruiting for ISIL. Republican policy harms millions of Americans. He fought with the political big guns and continually made reference to his opponents as having no legitimate ground for opposition. So his just desserts for spending so much time bullying the opposition (and some say it was justified) is somewhere around half the country feeling marginalized ... your views and concerns aren't legitimate, they're attached to hardliners or extremists. The best microcosm of this attitude was talking about Americans who "cling to guns and religion." This is probably all an argument for the history books when the figure of Obama is judged by what he actually said and did. Nixon was also pushed by the media as one thing (some radical), and years later everyone discovered something else (moderate policymaking) after active warfare against his administration was completed. Today the same types are carrying water for the Obama administration, but eventually they'll move on. Trump even now has a chance to show what deal-making is (and I'll probably hate the deals) to contrast with the way Obama clung to his ideology and sorta flipped the table and demonized the negotiators every time he signed something. But if you can't see it now, stay tuned ... it's the internet age and all his speeches and addresses are catalogued for future biographers to examine his methods and impact for those that missed it the first time around. I'd be remiss to not also mention the parallel culture wars in society that treated groups like traditional christians and white working class families like they were the enemy and their views on the functioning of society were not just wrong but evil. well if there are (at least) two sides which you seem to acknowledge it makes one wonder what a non-divisive president would look like. presumably you are not arguing for a radical centrism. so for the description "divisive" to not be a tautological corollary to an axiomatic two party system there must be something more than simple disagreement. and i dont see that in obama's case. he seems eminently reasonable (eg in a conversation) and level headed with significant levels of empathy. You said what it would take to be non-divisive president: level headed and having sufficient empathy. What you might've read is my contention that he has repeatedly and consistently behaved otherwise. Policy disagreements can be debated on their merits without insisting Republicans have gone off the deep end (and see the kind of president elected in the backlash). He's given sound bites to civil discourse while pushing proto-uncivil discourse. He's not as blunt as Trump about it, for sure. Slight exception for using a memorial for fallen police officers to slander police officers; that time he was just as bad. This comes against his wide base of support that thinks he was forced to behave in this manner rather than electing to make it trench warfare. Bill Clinton was a good counter example, at least within his presidency, for bringing the nation together. Veto the bill twice, then sign it, and herald it as a big win. He was more the traditional politician to Obama's fondness for ideological campaigns. bill clinton was a radical centrist whose wake left us with W bush, one of the worst presidents in modern history. i'm not sure your analysis of how obama's divisiveness has led to the trump "reaction" holds up. edit: also for someone who frequently criticizes "liberals" for their hyperbolic overreactions you sure have a penchant for histrionics. obama "slandering" the police? come on. i don't think hardly anything obama has said has been hyperbolic or indefensible. he's too cool for that. If BJ Clinton was a radical centrist, Trump a nazi, and Obama's a Stalinist. I just find that position absurd. But we're not really here to do critical historical arguments. Read the speech. He used the ceremony to grandstand. You see, at that moment several police officers were killed by someone who told officers he "wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers" but Obama really wondered about his motives. And to commemorate such loss, he felt the urge to mention that "It's easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer ... or even a book!" Rofl. He also used this instance to speculate on then-unknown circumstances of two blacks killed by police officers. Totally appropriate. Now you show enough intellectual engagement to rise above the appearance of "too cool for that" to examine what really happened. The speech is available in video and text. And it stands proud in my list of examples for why Obama should've been time person of the year for a divided America.
Do you really disagree with the idea that Bill was a radical centrist? What do you think he was?
I read the Obama speech after the Dallas shooting. You think one line about flooding communities with guns is grandstanding? I just don't see it. It honestly seems like you are "triggered" by anyone suggesting that America might have a gun problem in one sentence out of a 40 minute speech.
|
On December 08 2016 13:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:44 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland? Just curious, if you were Palestinian do you think you would agree that the US supporting your oppression was in your best interest? If not, what would you do about it? I would not support it. But ultimately, knowing what I know now about how this situation plays out in many analogous situations all around the world ("coexistence" between a regional superpower and a weaker group), I'd accept that there's really fuck all that can be done about it (you can't really have true independence from your next-door neighbor that is a lot stronger than you). That being so, giving up independence and working with what you have is the best way forward. That's a situation that you can work with, given that Israel isn't one of the countries known for ethnic cleansing (unless you ask a ridiculously biased commentator perhaps). Well a two-state solution where one state is significantly influenced by the more powerful one, is notably different than a state with a second class citizenry. If we're talking about a two-state solution I might agree with you, if we're talking about having ~half of the population of a country be powerless over it's own lives, that's just dumb/not sustainable. EDIT: to your previous post it shouldn't be lost that American weapon manufacturers make billions off of the perpetual conflict, and ending it benefits them in no way. Having half the nation be second-class citizenry is honestly much preferable to war. Frankly, if their legal status is the same as citizens, it can usually be resolved through organic evolution of the society. And yes, there are people who benefit from prolonging war. Doesn't mean you should pin that on the entire country.
Well as a country we view weapons manufacturing as something that's okay to get wealthy off of, as opposed to something a country has to do out of self-preservation, so I think the country does bear some responsibility just from that.
Having a two state solution isn't a guarantee of war though, so I'm not seeing how outright subjugation is preferable to measured independence.
|
On December 08 2016 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 13:56 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:44 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland? Just curious, if you were Palestinian do you think you would agree that the US supporting your oppression was in your best interest? If not, what would you do about it? I would not support it. But ultimately, knowing what I know now about how this situation plays out in many analogous situations all around the world ("coexistence" between a regional superpower and a weaker group), I'd accept that there's really fuck all that can be done about it (you can't really have true independence from your next-door neighbor that is a lot stronger than you). That being so, giving up independence and working with what you have is the best way forward. That's a situation that you can work with, given that Israel isn't one of the countries known for ethnic cleansing (unless you ask a ridiculously biased commentator perhaps). Well a two-state solution where one state is significantly influenced by the more powerful one, is notably different than a state with a second class citizenry. If we're talking about a two-state solution I might agree with you, if we're talking about having ~half of the population of a country be powerless over it's own lives, that's just dumb/not sustainable. EDIT: to your previous post it shouldn't be lost that American weapon manufacturers make billions off of the perpetual conflict, and ending it benefits them in no way. Having half the nation be second-class citizenry is honestly much preferable to war. Frankly, if their legal status is the same as citizens, it can usually be resolved through organic evolution of the society. And yes, there are people who benefit from prolonging war. Doesn't mean you should pin that on the entire country. Having a two state solution isn't a guarantee of war though, so I'm not seeing how outright subjugation is preferable to measured independence.
Again, not an easy question to answer. But ultimately it is undeniable that the Palestinians will have to accept that Israel is strong enough to have quite a bit of influence on them and that war/terrorism won't get rid of power asymmetry.
|
On December 08 2016 14:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:56 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:44 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes the road to peace starts with the realization that you won't be able to exist separate from your stronger neighbors and that you should make the best of being under their influence. Not always, but often. Resentment and strife always remain but they don't have to lead to war. We do realize our Declaration of Independence basically says it would be the responsibility and right of peaceful Palestinians to go to war with Israel under such an arrangement though? But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — If Britain were ten times more powerful than it was and there weren't an ocean separating the two, the story would be quite different. Power asymmetry changes the story a lot. Does Ireland enjoy independence from Britain now? Scotland? Just curious, if you were Palestinian do you think you would agree that the US supporting your oppression was in your best interest? If not, what would you do about it? I would not support it. But ultimately, knowing what I know now about how this situation plays out in many analogous situations all around the world ("coexistence" between a regional superpower and a weaker group), I'd accept that there's really fuck all that can be done about it (you can't really have true independence from your next-door neighbor that is a lot stronger than you). That being so, giving up independence and working with what you have is the best way forward. That's a situation that you can work with, given that Israel isn't one of the countries known for ethnic cleansing (unless you ask a ridiculously biased commentator perhaps). Well a two-state solution where one state is significantly influenced by the more powerful one, is notably different than a state with a second class citizenry. If we're talking about a two-state solution I might agree with you, if we're talking about having ~half of the population of a country be powerless over it's own lives, that's just dumb/not sustainable. EDIT: to your previous post it shouldn't be lost that American weapon manufacturers make billions off of the perpetual conflict, and ending it benefits them in no way. Having half the nation be second-class citizenry is honestly much preferable to war. Frankly, if their legal status is the same as citizens, it can usually be resolved through organic evolution of the society. And yes, there are people who benefit from prolonging war. Doesn't mean you should pin that on the entire country. Having a two state solution isn't a guarantee of war though, so I'm not seeing how outright subjugation is preferable to measured independence. Again, not an easy question to answer. But ultimately it is undeniable that the Palestinians will have to accept that Israel is strong enough to have quite a bit of influence on them and that war/terrorism won't get rid of power asymmetry.
I could accept the idea that there's no other option than to accept that Israel will have unfair influence on a Palestinian state, but I reject the assertion that a two state solution isn't possible under that restriction.
As an independent country it would change the positions we and other countries would have to take regarding dealing with each group. As such, I think it may be more likely to end better for Palestinian people who just want the right to their self-determination than any scenario where there isn't an officially recognized Palestine.
To put a point on it, the idea that one side must be "cleansed" is horrifyingly bad and lazy imo.
|
|
|
I didn't make the "cleansed" claim though it is probably true that if you want to get rid of strife in general then that's probably what needs to happen. You don't need to end strife to end war though; just look at the US and the various conflicts that exist within its borders.
A two-state solution with an arrangement such as suzerainty is reasonably feasible, IMO. Ultimately Palestine will have to be a client state of Israel if it wants peace.
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 08 2016 13:50 LegalLord wrote:
I'm sure some want perpetual war, the same some in the US might think we should nuke the Middle East. Doesn't mean it's dominant or that the nation or the government it is likely to have will want to do so.
You're making the erroneous assumption that an "indefinite state of warfare" is equivalent to taking extreme measures in the name of war; if we were committed to nuking the Middle East, we could hardly expect conflict to last six months.
Actually it is the dominant attitude within the Knesset.
On December 08 2016 13:50 LegalLord wrote:
Resentment will exist and manifest in not altogether pleasant ways. It always does. But all terrorism really does is decentralize the opposition, turning civilians into military targets. Asymmetrical warfare isn't a panacea for being weak. Terrorism won't let Palestine win here either.
Come on LegalLord. You know the nature of terrorism is a lot more complicated than that. One of the fun aspects of it is that it renders your last two sentences entirely meaningless (which are framed within classic notions of nation-based warfare).
On December 08 2016 13:56 LegalLord wrote:
Having half the nation be second-class citizenry is honestly much preferable to war. Frankly, if their legal status is the same as citizens, it can usually be resolved through organic evolution of the society. And being second-class citizenry doesn't mean you're powerless, it just means you can't be independent. I won't weigh in on one-state vs two-state here though, because I haven't looked into it enough to give a well-thought-out answer as to which is better.
And yes, there are people who benefit from prolonging war. Doesn't mean you should pin that on the entire country.
If their legal status were the same as Israeli citizens, they wouldn't be second-class citizens and Zionism within Israel would be facing an existential crisis.
"Organic evolution of the society" sounds like a failure in engage in the normative ethics of the situation and unsubstantiated faith in the idea of progress as inevitable. Also, it's ironic that you cite it as an eventual solution to Israeli-Palestinian tensions when its precise failure to occur was a major reason why the Jewish Agency accepted Resolution 181. If 2000 years in exile wasn't long enough for Jews to be fully integrated and accepted into European society, what timeline could we possibly establish for Palestinians to justify faith in historical progress?
|
any bets on who else trump will tweet insults at before the year's over?
|
that's exactly the kind of youtube-comment section behavior people have been talking about and how that's supposedly something good now...
I know it's obviously not Trump himself but he has to know that his comments will result in stuff like that from the really... let's call it passionate ... parts of his followers.
The guy says that 350 jobs Trump claimed to have saved were never scheduled to be cut in the first place, the company confirms that, Trump basicly calls him and the company a liar and people want to go after the kids is what I'm getting out of this oO
|
And people wondered why his rape accuser didn't come forward.
|
I'll repeat: the idea that the actions, policies and security practices that we are criticizing here and that have been taken by Israel against Palestinians, Palestinian territories, and even passed domestically, are a necessary and unavoidable response to terrorism to ensure Israeli security is false. They are the result of political choices that have been made while other options were, and continue to be, available. These choices have notably resulted from the increased dominance in Israeli politics of policy entrepreneurs and of leaders favoring those kind of policies, for a variety of reasons. In recent times and within Israel itself, plenty of major security and military officials have joined scholars and some politicians in denouncing the path taken by Israel under Olmert and Netanyahu in particular. The idea that everything Israel does is only what needs to be done to ensure its security is simply not true.
|
A Bigger Economic Pie, but a Smaller Slice for Half of the U.S.
Even with all the setbacks from recessions, burst bubbles and vanishing industries, the United States has still pumped out breathtaking riches over the last three and half decades.
The real economy more than doubled in size; the government now uses a substantial share of that bounty to hand over as much as $5 trillion to help working families, older people, disabled and unemployed people pay for a home, visit a doctor and put their children through school.
Yet for half of all Americans, their share of the total economic pie has shrunk significantly, new research has found.
This group — the approximately 117 million adults stuck on the lower half of the income ladder — “has been completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s,” the team of economists found. “Even after taxes and transfers, there has been close to zero growth for working-age adults in the bottom 50 percent.”
The new findings, by the economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, provide the most thoroughgoing analysis to date of how the income kitty — like paychecks, profit-sharing, fringe benefits and food stamps — is divided among the American population.
[...]
Mr. Piketty, Mr. Saez and Mr. Zucman concluded that the main driver of wealth in recent years has been investment income at the top. That is a switch from the 1980s and 1990s, when gains in income were primarily generated by working.
That divergence can slow innovation and further entrench inequities, said Heather Boushey, an economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. When labor income provides the primary route to riches, it creates incentives for people to improve their education and work harder, Ms. Boushey explained. But if getting ahead requires already having a stockpile of cash or inheriting a windfall from your parents, then it is much harder to work your way up.
“If you’re closing off entryways, then you are basically shutting off avenues to competitiveness, innovation and growth,” Ms. Boushey said, “even if you don’t care about fairness.”
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
