|
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 21:40 kwizach wrote: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.
The political landscape of Israel affirms this perspective given the persistent struggle between the conservatives a la Likud and liberal political coalitions a la Zionist Union. The extent to which Israel's practices are "required" by the situation is something that is fought over on a daily basis.
|
On December 08 2016 22:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 21:40 kwizach wrote: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. The political landscape of Israel affirms this perspective given the persistent struggle between the conservatives a la Likud and liberal political coalitions a la Zionist Union. The extent to which Israel's practices are "required" by the situation is something that is fought over on a daily basis.
Israel does not have a liberal political anything. I've always been confused by their illegal occupation. What is the argument exactly? It used to belong to them so it should be given back? The world would get very confusing if this policy were to be applied internationally.
|
This is not the thread to argue the contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the notion that "Israel does not have a liberal political anything" is abject nonsense that can only come from a place of ignorance. There are Israelis who despise Netanyahu and his style of approaching the conflict, and they are fighting political fights to that end on a daily basis. Pretending otherwise alongside claims of being confused do not change this.
|
On December 08 2016 23:06 farvacola wrote:
This is not the thread to argue the contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the notion that "Israel does not have a liberal political anything" is abject nonsense that can only come from a place of ignorance. There are Israelis who despise Netanyahu and his style of approaching the conflict, and they are fighting political fights to that end on a daily basis. Pretending otherwise alongside claims of being confused do not change this.
I think a pretty good comparison to the leftists in Israel are the Texas Democrats. Haven't held control for a couple decades, but still make up like 40% of the population. Significant but permanent minority.
|
|
|
Linda McMahon, the co-founder of the pro-wrestling enterprise World Wrestling Entertainment, was selected Wednesday by President-elect Donald Trump to head the Small Business Administration.
In a statement released by the Trump transition team, Trump called McMahon "one of the country's top female executives" and said she would help push his "America First" agenda forward. He added:
"She helped grow WWE from a modest 13-person operation to a publicly traded global enterprise with more than 800 employees in offices worldwide. Linda is going to be a phenomenal leader and champion for small businesses and unleash America's entrepreneurial spirit all across the country."
McMahon never has held elective office; the Connecticut Republican ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010 and 2012, but lost in the general election both times. McMahon spent about $100 million of her own fortune on the campaigns — about double what Trump spent on his presidential run.
Trump Tags Former Wrestling Magnate To Head Small Business Administration
|
On December 09 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +Linda McMahon, the co-founder of the pro-wrestling enterprise World Wrestling Entertainment, was selected Wednesday by President-elect Donald Trump to head the Small Business Administration.
In a statement released by the Trump transition team, Trump called McMahon "one of the country's top female executives" and said she would help push his "America First" agenda forward. He added:
"She helped grow WWE from a modest 13-person operation to a publicly traded global enterprise with more than 800 employees in offices worldwide. Linda is going to be a phenomenal leader and champion for small businesses and unleash America's entrepreneurial spirit all across the country."
McMahon never has held elective office; the Connecticut Republican ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010 and 2012, but lost in the general election both times. McMahon spent about $100 million of her own fortune on the campaigns — about double what Trump spent on his presidential run. Trump Tags Former Wrestling Magnate To Head Small Business Administration
I really wish draining the swamp didn't have to come with sacrificing subject matter expertise.
|
On December 09 2016 01:07 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:Linda McMahon, the co-founder of the pro-wrestling enterprise World Wrestling Entertainment, was selected Wednesday by President-elect Donald Trump to head the Small Business Administration.
In a statement released by the Trump transition team, Trump called McMahon "one of the country's top female executives" and said she would help push his "America First" agenda forward. He added:
"She helped grow WWE from a modest 13-person operation to a publicly traded global enterprise with more than 800 employees in offices worldwide. Linda is going to be a phenomenal leader and champion for small businesses and unleash America's entrepreneurial spirit all across the country."
McMahon never has held elective office; the Connecticut Republican ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010 and 2012, but lost in the general election both times. McMahon spent about $100 million of her own fortune on the campaigns — about double what Trump spent on his presidential run. Trump Tags Former Wrestling Magnate To Head Small Business Administration I really wish draining the swamp didn't have to come with sacrificing subject matter expertise.
that would be nice indeed; but it is somewhat inevitable. At least to a significant degree; as anyone who has high expertise must have a reason for doing so. though there may be options for which the sacrifice would be somewhat less.
|
Conservatives' lack of outrage over Trump's potential conflicts lays bare the bias present in their outrage over the Clinton Foundation.
Just four blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, diplomats from oil-rich Bahrain entertained guests in a lavish ballroom at the Trump International Hotel Wednesday, an event that critics said embodied growing concerns about foreign leaders booking Trump properties to try and curry favor with the next American president.
“I’m very concerned about it,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. “If folks want to win favor with the president, they go to his hotel. When they meet up with him, the first thing they will say is ‘we are staying at your hotel, we took out 30 rooms for a week.’”
Yahoo
|
On December 08 2016 23:06 farvacola wrote:
This is not the thread to argue the contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the notion that "Israel does not have a liberal political anything" is abject nonsense that can only come from a place of ignorance. There are Israelis who despise Netanyahu and his style of approaching the conflict, and they are fighting political fights to that end on a daily basis. Pretending otherwise alongside claims of being confused do not change this.
There's a really good book on the topic of the political debates within the Knesset pertaining to the domestic responses to offer to existing or perceived security threats to Israel and its population: Security and Defensive Democracy in Israel: A Critical Approach to Political Discourse by Sharon Weinblum. It deals with the domestic level and not with the external actions and policies to pursue, but it's very relevant nonetheless.
|
That's a pretty wild understatement In February the Times made a poll that suggested that 20% of his supporters thought that the slaves shouldn't have been freed.
About "draining the swamp'. I think it's pretty clear that what Trump campaign calls "the establishment" is in fact what used to be called "the intelligentsia". You can surf on anti-intellectualism and get elected on a platform where everybody slightly wonky or who knows what he is talking about is evil, but then you have to govern with dummies or piss off your base. Looks like The Donald is doing both.
Great to see a brilliant mind like Ben Carson getting into a power position. The good thing about idiocracy is that it's really a lot of fun if you are cynical enough.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:The good thing about idiocracy is that it's really a lot of fun if you are cynical enough.
A bit of cynical schadenfreude goes a long way here, yes. It's healthy to sort of internalize the troll scenario we have here.
|
So Trump is going to pick Andy Prudzer (currently the CEO of Hardees/Carl's Jr.) to be Labor Secretary. Trump's cabinet is shaping up to be a murderer's row of picks that are going to antagonize democrat interests.
|
He's criticized regulation but other than that he's just a policy unknown with little subject matter expertise.
|
On December 09 2016 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
So Trump is going to pick Andy Prudzer (currently the CEO of Hardees/Carl's Jr.) to be Labor Secretary. Trump's cabinet is shaping up to be a murderer's row of picks that are going to antagonize democrat interests.
The guy from Penn & Teller's Bullshit? He'd be a good secretary of anything.
|
On December 09 2016 02:30 Doodsmack wrote:
He's criticized regulation but other than that he's just a policy unknown with little subject matter expertise.
Yeah, I'm sure that the CEO of a major fast food chain knows nothing about labor relations. C'mon, dood.
|
On December 09 2016 02:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 02:30 Doodsmack wrote:
He's criticized regulation but other than that he's just a policy unknown with little subject matter expertise. Yeah, I'm sure that the CEO of a major fast food chain knows nothing about labor relations. C'mon, dood.
He knows that his multinational corp wants less regulation and costs, but that's probably one small sliver of his new position.
Not to mention the contradictions between his positions and actions and the "America First" philosophy. $7 minimum wage, massive automation, farms probably located in South America. He's a fatcat CEO from the perspective of the rural working class.
|
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.
A two-state solutions does not help either Palestinians or Israelites and will 100% lead to the same positions they are in now. Two cultures with one having more power and say than the other whose differences and disdain for each other has not been resolved, only this time westerners thinks the problem is done and then atrocities can now happen without prying eyes. It is the dumbest and worst possible solution to the problem.
There are only two solutions, neither of which any side wants.
You either give Palestine enough firepower that Israel is no longer a threat for them.
Or you side 100% with Israel and accept that Palestinian's are enemy combatants.
Telling Palestine and Israel that Palestine is not weak and then walking away assuming everything will work out is absolutely fool hardy. Its like catching a rapist in mid-attack and telling him "You know she has rights right?" and then walking away. The truth is that you either need to arm the woman with enough firepower that she can't be raped or you attack the rapist. Its absurd to think the situation is anything less dire.
|
magpie ->
I think a 2-state solution could work with heavy involvement of 3rd parties; but I don't think the 3rd parties are willing to put in the kind of investment it would require.
I tried looking for an israel-palestine thread that we could move the israel discussion to, but I couldn't find one. Should we create one? or is there one that I missed? The talk here on it doesn't seem to be related to US policy toward Israel, so it's off-topic.
|
On December 09 2016 03:13 zlefin wrote:
magpie ->
I think a 2-state solution could work with heavy involvement of 3rd parties; but I don't think the 3rd parties are willing to put in the kind of investment it would require.
I tried looking for an israel-palestine thread that we could move the israel discussion to, but I couldn't find one. Should we create one? or is there one that I missed? The talk here on it doesn't seem to be related to US policy toward Israel, so it's off-topic.
I think it fits here just fine because 2-state solution really translates to the US annexation and protection of Palestine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
