socialism

[clubdeac]

You are right though. A lot of the ultra risk are "self made" even though the vast majority do start with significant wealth. It makes interesting questions.

Whatever you think of Musk, the man is obviously clever and talented there is no denying this. But there are plenty of clever and talented people born into circumstances that ensure they’ll never realize their potential. There is near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. Would Musk have reached a trillion dollars if he had been born poor and Black instead of rich and white in apartheid in South Africa?

Huh? Would Michael Jordan have reached a net worth of 4 billion had he been born rich and white instead of poor and black? How bout Tyler Perry?

Stop with the race stuff already.

 

[lobelsteve]

lol @ this talking point. there is plenty of unbiased history of why this is. i mean just look at iran, plenty of jews living there who were upset when israel bombed their synagogue. if they wanted to leave, they would've

mass media has been biased and has a specific agenda since the advent of "news/television"

also those muslims/christians living in israel, they face institutionalized discrimination

Discrimination Against Palestinian Citizens of Israel

Palestinian citizens of Israel face systemic discrimination, from land rights to education, under laws and policies designed to privilege Jewish citizens.

imeu.org

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Pain Applicant1]

I responded referring to the US and the economic benefit of immigration when we attract the best and brightest.

Other countries have their own problems, I'm sure there are many reasons. Many of those countries are dictatorships and don't allow freedom of political expression. I consider myself lucky to have been born and living in the US. Immigration, like anything else needs good policy to be a net benefit for the country.

So you are essentially saying that white countries need non-white people to be as successful as they are? Do you think white countries wouldn't make it on their own?

White people and countries will do just fine without non-white mass immigration.

Example numeral uno:
When did the US emerge as the preeminent global superpower that it is? 1945
What percent of the US were whities back then? About 90%

See, they did just fine.

Whites tend to invent things to keep things moving. They'll figure it out.

Question for you? Please respond. Can you name one benefit that African muslims bring to Switzerland? If you were in charge of Switzerland, how would you convince your citizens that allowing African Muslims will have a positive effect on you and the country?

-----------

Other countries may have their own problems, but the primary reason they lack diversity is that the people don't want it. It really is that simple.

 

[mille125]

Your way of thinking is what led to every failed communist and socialist state that exists now or that ever was.

That is comical. Nothing that I said is socialist or communist. Close the loopholes on the ultra wealthy and get them to pay a fair share of taxes.

Really?

Do you know the definitions of those words or are you just using them to fear monger like many on the right?

Parts of socialism and capitalism are in every country. You know that but you just want to fear monger.

If you want to know who is really adopting unprecedented socialist properties, go back and reread my initial first post when I started this thread. Ironically you still didn't answer that question.

 

[mille125]

If you watched the video Jessica explains this error. Go rewatch it. You’ll get it eventually

She does not but I am not going to argue about it

 

[emergentmd]

I am a billionaire, most/all of my wealth is in my company, and the company paid large amounts of taxes. Does this note equate to me paying taxes on the success of the company = increase my NW?

Assume we follow Cali's Billionaire tax and everyone agrees it is a great idea including Billionaires. Given that this is a one time tax triggered on Jan 1st 2026 only on Billionaires, how are you going to implement it? If Buffet Jr had 1 Bil in Jan 1st, then he pays his 5%, does that mean he will never get taxed again even if he hit 10 Bil by December? If Gates Jr had 10 Bil in Jan 1st, then drops down to 1Bil by Dec, does he owe 500M? How is this even remotely fair?

I am rooting for cali's billionaire tax so the lefties can see what reality looks like rather than just spewing out feelz statements.

 

[mille125]

So you are essentially saying that white countries need non-white people to be as successful as they are? Do you think white countries wouldn't make it on their own?

White people and countries will do just fine without non-white mass immigration.

Example numeral uno:
When did the US emerge as the preeminent global superpower that it is? 1945
What percent of the US were whities back then? About 90%

See, they did just fine.

Whites tend to invent things to keep things moving. They'll figure it out.

Question for you? Please respond. Can you name one benefit that African muslims bring to Switzerland? If you were in charge of Switzerland, how would you convince your citizens that allowing African Muslims will have a positive effect on you and the country?

-----------

Other countries may have their own problems, but the primary reason they lack diversity is that the people don't want it. It really is that simple.

A lot to unpack here but the simple answer is that African Muslims do have a positive effect in Switzerland or any other "white country" that you use in your example. Why? You asked for one reason. I will do better and name 4 without even thinking hard.

1) Migrants fill critical labor shortages. You know this yourself as you have spoken numerous times about the laborers that you work with.
2) Migrants boost the workforce in aging societies (more about this later)
3) Migrants add entreprenurial small businesses to a community including local markets and restaurants.
4) Specifically to your example mosques do a lot a charity work outside of the immigrant community. As I mentioned, Muslims are instructed to give a portion of their treasure and time to charity and the vast majority of them do this.

Of all of the things listed, number 2 is probably most impt long-term. These white European societies are aging rapidly and if depending on only native citizens will wither into non-existence and non-importance in our children's lifetimes. A good book about this is the Demographic cliff by Harry Dent. A little old but gives a very good detailed, easy to read expression on demographics and its importance.

Finally, to answer your question of why societies dont welcome immigration, this answer is easy. It's fear and sometimes racism. People dont like new things that are different from them. I saw this when I built my first office in a previous all residential area. The citizens were not happy. One lady ran into my office, slammed a petition down, and ran out. If eventually died down but if you think logically, why would you object to having a doctor's office as a neighbor. No restaurant or food stuffs, quiet, closed after 5 and on weekends. It demonstrates how people fear the unknown.

 

[bubaghanush]

So you are essentially saying that white countries need non-white people to be as successful as they are? Do you think white countries wouldn't make it on their own?

White people and countries will do just fine without non-white mass immigration.

Example numeral uno:
When did the US emerge as the preeminent global superpower that it is? 1945
What percent of the US were whities back then? About 90%

See, they did just fine.

Whites tend to invent things to keep things moving. They'll figure it out.

Question for you? Please respond. Can you name one benefit that African muslims bring to Switzerland? If you were in charge of Switzerland, how would you convince your citizens that allowing African Muslims will have a positive effect on you and the country?

-----------

Other countries may have their own problems, but the primary reason they lack diversity is that the people don't want it. It really is that simple.

No, I did not say that. For the third time, I said the US has benefited economically from immigration with a net increase in GDP per capita. Pointing out economic data isn't saying a country can't survive without immigration, it's just a fact about economic growth.

 

[lobelsteve]

A lot to unpack here but the simple answer is that African Muslims do have a positive effect in Switzerland or any other "white country" that you use in your example. Why? You asked for one reason. I will do better and name 4 without even thinking hard.

1) Migrants fill critical labor shortages. You know this yourself as you have spoken numerous times about the laborers that you work with.
2) Migrants boost the workforce in aging societies (more about this later)
3) Migrants add entreprenurial small businesses to a community including local markets and restaurants.
4) Specifically to your example mosques do a lot a charity work outside of the immigrant community. As I mentioned, Muslims are instructed to give a portion of their treasure and time to charity and the vast majority of them do this.

Of all of the things listed, number 2 is probably most impt long-term. These white European societies are aging rapidly and if depending on only native citizens will wither into non-existence and non-importance in our children's lifetimes. A good book about this is the Demographic cliff by Harry Dent. A little old but gives a very good detailed, easy to read expression on demographics and its importance.

Finally, to answer your question of why societies dont welcome immigration, this answer is easy. It's fear and sometimes racism. People dont like new things that are different from them. I saw this when I built my first office in a previous all residential area. The citizens were not happy. One lady ran into my office, slammed a petition down, and ran out. If eventually died down but if you think logically, why would you object to having a doctor's office as a neighbor. No restaurant or food stuffs, quiet, closed after 5 and on weekends. It demonstrates how people fear the unknown.

Melting pot vs hostile takeover?
eg: Somali

 

[Pain Applicant1]

A lot to unpack here but the simple answer is that African Muslims do have a positive effect in Switzerland or any other "white country" that you use in your example. Why? You asked for one reason. I will do better and name 4 without even thinking hard.

1) Migrants fill critical labor shortages. You know this yourself as you have spoken numerous times about the laborers that you work with.
2) Migrants boost the workforce in aging societies (more about this later)
3) Migrants add entreprenurial small businesses to a community including local markets and restaurants.
4) Specifically to your example mosques do a lot a charity work outside of the immigrant community. As I mentioned, Muslims are instructed to give a portion of their treasure and time to charity and the vast majority of them do this.

Of all of the things listed, number 2 is probably most impt long-term. These white European societies are aging rapidly and if depending on only native citizens will wither into non-existence and non-importance in our children's lifetimes. A good book about this is the Demographic cliff by Harry Dent. A little old but gives a very good detailed, easy to read expression on demographics and its importance.

Finally, to answer your question of why societies dont welcome immigration, this answer is easy. It's fear and sometimes racism. People dont like new things that are different from them. I saw this when I built my first office in a previous all residential area. The citizens were not happy. One lady ran into my office, slammed a petition down, and ran out. If eventually died down but if you think logically, why would you object to having a doctor's office as a neighbor. No restaurant or food stuffs, quiet, closed after 5 and on weekends. It demonstrates how people fear the unknown.

Don't fall for Harry Dent. He's made so many extreme predictions about the end of the world. He just tries to gain attention and sell books.

You also make pretty extreme predictions. China, S Korea, Europe --> all are going to fail due to falling birth rates and immigration is the only thing that will save them. Do you truly think that if this is a major issue, policy won't be created to prevent it? There are always problems in society and that's why elected officials get elected so they can address these problems.

Agree with the labor issue, at least in the US, but it may be similar in Europe. Either way, there are obvious ways to address this other than granting permanent citizenship to foreigners. Temporary work permits, incentives to encourage your own population to take certain jobs, etc.

Local markets are of little importance to the population at large, as the country did just fine before these markets came to be. I'll agree on the restaurants, but of course this can also be easily addressed. If there's a demand for African food, I would just open up a restaurant selling African food. I'd learn how to cook it and start my business. It isn't rocket science.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

A lot to unpack here but the simple answer is that African Muslims do have a positive effect in Switzerland or any other "white country" that you use in your example. Why? You asked for one reason. I will do better and name 4 without even thinking hard.

1) Migrants fill critical labor shortages. You know this yourself as you have spoken numerous times about the laborers that you work with.
2) Migrants boost the workforce in aging societies (more about this later)
3) Migrants add entreprenurial small businesses to a community including local markets and restaurants.
4) Specifically to your example mosques do a lot a charity work outside of the immigrant community. As I mentioned, Muslims are instructed to give a portion of their treasure and time to charity and the vast majority of them do this.

Of all of the things listed, number 2 is probably most impt long-term. These white European societies are aging rapidly and if depending on only native citizens will wither into non-existence and non-importance in our children's lifetimes. A good book about this is the Demographic cliff by Harry Dent. A little old but gives a very good detailed, easy to read expression on demographics and its importance.

Finally, to answer your question of why societies dont welcome immigration, this answer is easy. It's fear and sometimes racism. People dont like new things that are different from them. I saw this when I built my first office in a previous all residential area. The citizens were not happy. One lady ran into my office, slammed a petition down, and ran out. If eventually died down but if you think logically, why would you object to having a doctor's office as a neighbor. No restaurant or food stuffs, quiet, closed after 5 and on weekends. It demonstrates how people fear the unknown.

Regarding the doctor's office, people don't like commercialization, especially of res areas. It does change the character. It brings in more traffic, etc. I don't want commercialization either, unless of course it's me doing the commercialization, lol!!!

Also, my guys for my construction company are all diverse, well not really diverse, but not white, but I am actively seeking to hire a diverse staff for my new business because I see many benefits to it LOL!!!!

 

[buddababa]

You sound like a terrorist sympathizer.

Facts & Figures – Justice For Jews from Arab Countries

justiceforjews.com

so supporting a two state solution and advocating for palestinians; gives me that label huh?

if educated people like you can't see whats wrong and right anymore, then hope is lost for america.
i've just lost all respect for you.

 

[buddababa]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

supporting hamas is not the same as supporting palestinians. You are truly uninformed about this. You've never lived in the middle east. you have no skin in the game. So its best you stay out of making such inflammatory rhetoric

 

[buddababa]

Sounds like do not know how to think.

Islam is intolerant. Run by radicals. But not called out by the masses. If you are part of a group that believes jews don’t have a right to exist then you are the problem.

people like you is what puts our friendly muslim neighbors at risk. how many muslims doctors are you labeling as being problematic. you are so far uneducated about islamic religion that you should just shut up and get back to work. no where does islam say jews dont have a right to exist.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Muslims Give Crowdfunded $238K To Jewish Pittsburgh As Conspiracy Theories Swirl

The Muslim crowdfunding campaign to support victims of the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh has distributed its final grant.

forward.com

Jewish communities give $700,000 to victims of New Zealand mosque attacks - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

“An attack on one faith is an attack on us all,” a community leader said.

www.jta.org

 

[mille125]

Don't fall for Harry Dent. He's made so many extreme predictions about the end of the world. He just tries to gain attention and sell books.

You also make pretty extreme predictions. China, S Korea, Europe --> all are going to fail due to falling birth rates and immigration is the only thing that will save them. Do you truly think that if this is a major issue, policy won't be created to prevent it? There are always problems in society and that's why elected officials get elected so they can address these problems.

Agree with the labor issue, at least in the US, but it may be similar in Europe. Either way, there are obvious ways to address this other than granting permanent citizenship to foreigners. Temporary work permits, incentives to encourage your own population to take certain jobs, etc.

Local markets are of little importance to the population at large, as the country did just fine before these markets came to be. I'll agree on the restaurants, but of course this can also be easily addressed. If there's a demand for African food, I would just open up a restaurant selling African food. I'd learn how to cook it and start my business. It isn't rocket science.

I never said that China, Japan, and Europe are going to fail but they are going to face very severe problems that have no solution and are related to demographics.

China, who most of you say is very smart, has known this. They are trying to encourage domestic audiences to have more children (but most aren't interested). The one child policy put them on a path that they cannot recover from (without massive immigration).

Europe knows this too and it is the subject of a lot of writings that you may or may not have read.

The only one who doesn't understand this is MAGA/Trump. The US is on a different trajectory than those other countries because of our welcomeness to immigrants over the course of our history.

 

[mille125]

Regarding the doctor's office, people don't like commercialization, especially of res areas. It does change the character. It brings in more traffic, etc. I don't want commercialization either, unless of course it's me doing the commercialization, lol!!!

Also, my guys for my construction company are all diverse, well not really diverse, but not white, but I am actively seeking to hire a diverse staff for my new business because I see many benefits to it LOL!!!!

It was on a busy wide road. The original developer had a residential area with a dense number of trees as a buffer zone and then commercial. Over the years the developer got greedy and knocked all of the trees down and put more houses in. That is the reason that a residential property abutted to the back of my fence.

It all died down especially when I went to their neighborhood meeting and said if you want me out, I will sell but will make sure that a fast food restaurant buys my lot. Guess what.....they left me alone after that.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

It was on a busy wide road. The original developer had a residential area with a dense number of trees as a buffer zone and then commercial. Over the years the developer got greedy and knocked all of the trees down and put more houses in. That is the reason that a residential property abutted to the back of my fence.

It all died down especially when I went to their neighborhood meeting and said if you want me out, I will sell but will make sure that a fast food restaurant buys my lot. Guess what.....they left me alone after that.

Greed is a difficult thing to overcome. Everyone wants to be the last man on the boat, but in the end, development seems to always win out.

 

[mille125]

Greed is a difficult thing to overcome. Everyone wants to be the last man on the boat, but in the end, development seems to always win out.

Agreed but the commercial business owners got the blame.

 

[lobelsteve]

so supporting a two state solution and advocating for palestinians; gives me that label huh?

if educated people like you can't see whats wrong and right anymore, then hope is lost for america.
i've just lost all respect for you.

which 2 state solution would you like that was not already rejected by palestinian leadership serially.
Clown.

 

[buddababa]

which 2 state solution would you like that was not already rejected by palestinian leadership serially.
Clown.

you're so misinformed. if someone steals your land and house and then tells you to take just a portion of it and be quiet. you would also reject it.
racist.

 

[lobelsteve]

people like you is what puts our friendly muslim neighbors at risk. how many muslims doctors are you labeling as being problematic. you are so far uneducated about islamic religion that you should just shut up and get back to work. no where does islam say jews dont have a right to exist.

All of islam that does not denounce hamas. Silence is violence to co-opt a phrase. Did we deserve 9/11? Oct 7?
So you are saying you want to shut me up? Like the Taliban and women? The Taliban,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-39 officially known as the Islamic Movement of Taliban

 

[hyperalgesia]

you're so misinformed. if someone steals your land and house and then tells you to take just a portion of it and be quiet. you would also reject it.
racist.

If you start with this premise, everyone "stole" someone else's land.

Even if you assume that Israel conquered Palestine, at some point shouldn't a conquered people accept their defeat and make a deal and move on?

Is Gaza a successful story of "resistance"?

If the Palestinians had behaved like normal, conquered people, there would be so much less tragedy.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

you're so misinformed. if someone steals your land and house and then tells you to take just a portion of it and be quiet. you would also reject it.
racist.

How exactly did they steal someone's home and land? Are you making the claim that Euro Jews stole Arab land before the UN partition and that's why the Arabs rejected it?

 

[SSdoc33]

How exactly did they steal someone's home and land? Are you making the claim that Euro Jews stole Arab land before the UN partition and that's why the Arabs rejected it?

i mean, if you are forced out of your home, and prevented from returning, it kinda feels like stealing someone's land.

but we are 78 years into this thing. time to move on.

also, bibi has to go. served his purpose, overplaying his hand.

 

[clubdeac]

i mean, if you are forced out of your home, and prevented from returning, it kinda feels like stealing someone's land.

but we are 78 years into this thing. time to move on.

also, bibi has to go. served his purpose, overplaying his hand.

Depends on how far back you want to go. Whose land was it first? I’ll give you a hint, not the Palestinians

@Pain Applicant1 could probably give us a nice history lesson

 

[Pain Applicant1]

i mean, if you are forced out of your home, and prevented from returning, it kinda feels like stealing someone's land.

but we are 78 years into this thing. time to move on.

also, bibi has to go. served his purpose, overplaying his hand.

So are you referring to before or after the partition? Remember, the Arabs refused the partition plan, Israel declared independence, and all hell then broke loose. Wars reshape things. This is the natural outcome. Land and property change hands, people are dispossessed, new borders are made, etc. It's typical. For instance, the Iran war apparently just resulted in the Strait of Hormuz becoming a US territory overnight. Shall your family and mine go visit it on vacation now that it's part of the US?

To keep things in perspective, the entire mid east region is relatively new. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc are all relatively new countries. WW1 and WW2 reshaped everything. In Asia, India and Pakistan partition resulted in millions being dispossessed and probably another million killed. This is what happens.

Dispossession does not equal theft. If it did, I'd be locked up because I've evicted many tenants.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Depends on how far back you want to go. Whose land was it first? I’ll give you a hint, not the Palestinians

@Pain Applicant1 could probably give us a nice history lesson

I could try but my words and writings are worthless

 

[Pain Applicant1]

All of islam that does not denounce hamas. Silence is violence to co-opt a phrase. Did we deserve 9/11? Oct 7?
So you are saying you want to shut me up? Like the Taliban and women? The Taliban,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-39 officially known as the Islamic Movement of Taliban

I know or at least hope you're not implying this but let's keep things in perspective. There are 2 billion muslims in the world. How many are terrorists? Let's say 1 mil although probably a lot less. 1 mil of 2 bil is only 0.05%. That means over 99.9% do not commit terrorism. Even if it's 10 mil that would still mean over 99% are not terrorists.

I mention this because you brought up the taliban.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

All of islam that does not denounce hamas. Silence is violence to co-opt a phrase. Did we deserve 9/11? Oct 7?
So you are saying you want to shut me up? Like the Taliban and women? The Taliban,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-39 officially known as the Islamic Movement of Taliban

Why are you asking him if we deserved 9/11 and 10/7? He's already made his position very clear.

 

[bubaghanush]

If you start with this premise, everyone "stole" someone else's land.

Even if you assume that Israel conquered Palestine, at some point shouldn't a conquered people accept their defeat and make a deal and move on?

Is Gaza a successful story of "resistance"?

If the Palestinians had behaved like normal, conquered people, there would be so much less tragedy.

This is really misinformed. Name one peace deal in the past 30 years with a reliable source that didn't chop up a Palestinian state into a bunch of enclaves. There was never a viable Palestinian state on the table, just a network of archipelagos. It's frankly been absolutely impossible for the past 30 years due to settlements.

Your last sentence is quite the statement. What exactly should a normal conquered people behave like? Be specific on how you would have had the Palestinians respond in the last 30 years to achieve lasting peace.

What we're looking at now is one group of people, the Israelis subjugating another group of people, the Palestinians - controlling where they can move, what they can build, where they can work. Israeli settlers have citizenship rights, and Palestinians on the same land have essentially no rights and are subject to the mood of the IDF.

All of islam that does not denounce hamas. Silence is violence to co-opt a phrase. Did we deserve 9/11? Oct 7?
So you are saying you want to shut me up? Like the Taliban and women? The Taliban,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-39 officially known as the Islamic Movement of Taliban

Again, equating an entire religion to two extremist groups. Did you denounce the IDF killing tens of thousands of children? Did you denounce the settlers burning villages? If not, does that mean you support blowing up children and burning civilians because they are Muslim?

How exactly did they steal someone's home and land? Are you making the claim that Euro Jews stole Arab land before the UN partition and that's why the Arabs rejected it?

Depends on how far back you want to go. Whose land was it first? I’ll give you a hint, not the Palestinians

@Pain Applicant1 could probably give us a nice history lesson

The idea of right of return in 1948 has long sailed, totally unrealistic now. Israel clearly won in 1948 and 1967. The Geneva Accords prohibit transferring a civilian population which happened to Arabs and Jews in 1948. But it is happening in real time in the West Bank for years including now. Do you think the settlements are appropriate? Do you think Israel has a real interest in peace as it is expanding settlements?

Israel opens up bids for highly sensitive West Bank settlement project

The UK's foreign secretary condemned the move as "an unacceptable and destructive act".

www.bbc.com

https://www.timesofisrael.com/besie...w-blocking-them-in-fear-settlers-will-return/

 

[Pain Applicant1]

This is really misinformed. Name one peace deal in the past 30 years with a reliable source that didn't chop up a Palestinian state into a bunch of enclaves. There was never a viable Palestinian state on the table, just a network of archipelagos. It's frankly been absolutely impossible for the past 30 years due to settlements.

Your last sentence is quite the statement. What exactly should a normal conquered people behave like? Be specific on how you would have had the Palestinians respond in the last 30 years to achieve lasting peace.

What we're looking at now is one group of people, the Israelis subjugating another group of people, the Palestinians - controlling where they can move, what they can build, where they can work. Israeli settlers have citizenship rights, and Palestinians on the same land have essentially no rights and are subject to the mood of the IDF.



Again, equating an entire religion to two extremist groups. Did you denounce the IDF killing tens of thousands of children? Did you denounce the settlers burning villages? If not, does that mean you support blowing up children and burning civilians because they are Muslim?





The idea of right of return in 1948 has long sailed, totally unrealistic now. Israel clearly won in 1948 and 1967. The Geneva Accords prohibit transferring a civilian population which happened to Arabs and Jews in 1948. But it is happening in real time in the West Bank for years including now. Do you think the settlements are appropriate? Do you think Israel has a real interest in peace as it is expanding settlements?

Israel opens up bids for highly sensitive West Bank settlement project

The UK's foreign secretary condemned the move as "an unacceptable and destructive act".

www.bbc.com

https://www.timesofisrael.com/besie...w-blocking-them-in-fear-settlers-will-return/

Were you referring to the 1967 settlements when you were talking about theft of land? If so, there were plans to trade land for peace and Israel has shown that it's willing to do this. Sinai was exchanged for peace with Egypt and sinai was about 3x the size of the current country. Gaza was also "disengaged" from and how did that turn out for Israel? Did it result in a path to peace or missile attacks from Day 1 and Oct 7?

Why would Israel allow a state on its border if it's only going to be an Iranian proxy state? Would you do this if you were in charge?

How is the West Bank divided? A, B, C
Which does Israel control? C
Where does Israel build? C
Can Pals live in C? Yes
Which is Pal controlled? A
Where do Pals build? A
Can Jews live in A? No
Can Jews build in A? No
So why should Arabs be able to build in C?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

This is really misinformed. Name one peace deal in the past 30 years with a reliable source that didn't chop up a Palestinian state into a bunch of enclaves. There was never a viable Palestinian state on the table, just a network of archipelagos. It's frankly been absolutely impossible for the past 30 years due to settlements.

Your last sentence is quite the statement. What exactly should a normal conquered people behave like? Be specific on how you would have had the Palestinians respond in the last 30 years to achieve lasting peace.

What we're looking at now is one group of people, the Israelis subjugating another group of people, the Palestinians - controlling where they can move, what they can build, where they can work. Israeli settlers have citizenship rights, and Palestinians on the same land have essentially no rights and are subject to the mood of the IDF.



Again, equating an entire religion to two extremist groups. Did you denounce the IDF killing tens of thousands of children? Did you denounce the settlers burning villages? If not, does that mean you support blowing up children and burning civilians because they are Muslim?





The idea of right of return in 1948 has long sailed, totally unrealistic now. Israel clearly won in 1948 and 1967. The Geneva Accords prohibit transferring a civilian population which happened to Arabs and Jews in 1948. But it is happening in real time in the West Bank for years including now. Do you think the settlements are appropriate? Do you think Israel has a real interest in peace as it is expanding settlements?

Israel opens up bids for highly sensitive West Bank settlement project

The UK's foreign secretary condemned the move as "an unacceptable and destructive act".

www.bbc.com

https://www.timesofisrael.com/besie...w-blocking-them-in-fear-settlers-will-return/

Sorry, I didn't answer your question. Do I think Israel has a real interest in peace? No, I don't. Not at this point. But I don't think the Palestinians do either. Any peace agreement from the Palestinian side will just be used to buy time until they're strong enough to attack again. On the Israeli side, the religious right wing has gained power, and in their belief system, they want the area that they feel was biblically promised to them by their god. Unfortunately, for them, there are people already living in this area.

So the answer is that there is no answer.

My hope is that Iran falls and a more secular state that is more open to the west emerges out of it. If Iranian funding for Hamas and Hez dry up, I hope their influence wanes. Pals become more moderate, and the threat they pose to Israel diminishes. Once this threat dissipates, Israeli aggression will no longer be needed since the threat is no longer there. The Pals will then have more rights, fewer restrictions, and possibly their own state.

That's my hope.

 

[hyperalgesia]

This is really misinformed. Name one peace deal in the past 30 years with a reliable source that didn't chop up a Palestinian state into a bunch of enclaves. There was never a viable Palestinian state on the table, just a network of archipelagos. It's frankly been absolutely impossible for the past 30 years due to settlements.

Your last sentence is quite the statement. What exactly should a normal conquered people behave like? Be specific on how you would have had the Palestinians respond in the last 30 years to achieve lasting peace.

What we're looking at now is one group of people, the Israelis subjugating another group of people, the Palestinians - controlling where they can move, what they can build, where they can work. Israeli settlers have citizenship rights, and Palestinians on the same land have essentially no rights and are subject to the mood of the IDF.



Again, equating an entire religion to two extremist groups. Did you denounce the IDF killing tens of thousands of children? Did you denounce the settlers burning villages? If not, does that mean you support blowing up children and burning civilians because they are Muslim?





The idea of right of return in 1948 has long sailed, totally unrealistic now. Israel clearly won in 1948 and 1967. The Geneva Accords prohibit transferring a civilian population which happened to Arabs and Jews in 1948. But it is happening in real time in the West Bank for years including now. Do you think the settlements are appropriate? Do you think Israel has a real interest in peace as it is expanding settlements?

Israel opens up bids for highly sensitive West Bank settlement project

The UK's foreign secretary condemned the move as "an unacceptable and destructive act".

www.bbc.com

https://www.timesofisrael.com/besie...w-blocking-them-in-fear-settlers-will-return/

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[bubaghanush]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So Clinton is giving a talk to AIJAC. Is that an unbiased source? This is like the chief negotiator of Egypt giving a talk to Qatar.

Can you be more specific what deal he's referring to with a map? I assume this is the 2000 negotations. Both sides initially accepeted with reservations. There was never a finalized deal. The proposed map still cut up the West Bank into 3 parts and removed any international border (e.g. the whole Jordan valley) - still Bantustas. Negotations were going to continue but then Clinton was out and Bush got elected, and the new Israeli PM Ariel Sharon got elected and he had no interest in continuing like Ehud Barak. No way that deal would have been pushed through. Arafat had MANY faults, but to pin this one negotation that wasn't finalized as the Palestinians walking away is false.

 

[bubaghanush]

Were you referring to the 1967 settlements when you were talking about theft of land? If so, there were plans to trade land for peace and Israel has shown that it's willing to do this. Sinai was exchanged for peace with Egypt and sinai was about 3x the size of the current country. Gaza was also "disengaged" from and how did that turn out for Israel? Did it result in a path to peace or missile attacks from Day 1 and Oct 7?

Why would Israel allow a state on its border if it's only going to be an Iranian proxy state? Would you do this if you were in charge?

How is the West Bank divided? A, B, C
Which does Israel control? C
Where does Israel build? C
Can Pals live in C? Yes
Which is Pal controlled? A
Where do Pals build? A
Can Jews live in A? No
Can Jews build in A? No
So why should Arabs be able to build in C?

Regarding first sentence, no there were no settlements 1967. I am referring to settlements built post-1967.

Oslo accords were meant to be a 5-year temporary agreement for Israel to transfer complete control to Palestinians including Area C. Area C makes up 60% of the West Bank. It completely surrounds all Palestinian territioy and contains hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Building settlements is illegal in Area C according to international law. See map of Oslo accords:

Israel disengaged Gaza but maintained complete lands, air, sea control, water, power, economic control with intermittent military incursion. Kudos on Ariel Sharon for pushing this through, but it did not result in any improvement in quality of life for Gazans. It was always classified as under military occupation.

Oct 7th and Hamas atrocities are despicable and inexcusable. Recognizing they were formed 20 years after Israeli occupation began as an extremist byproduct is not justifying them in any way, but is understanding the historical context of why they formed.

 

[SSdoc33]

So Clinton is giving a talk to AIJAC. Is that an unbiased source? This is like the chief negotiator of Egypt giving a talk to Qatar.

Can you be more specific what deal he's referring to with a map? I assume this is the 2000 negotations. Both sides initially accepeted with reservations. There was never a finalized deal. The proposed map still cut up the West Bank into 3 parts and removed any international border (e.g. the whole Jordan valley) - still Bantustas. Negotations were going to continue but then Clinton was out and Bush got elected, and the new Israeli PM Ariel Sharon got elected and he had no interest in continuing like Ehud Barak. No way that deal would have been pushed through. Arafat had MANY faults, but to pin this one negotation that wasn't finalized as the Palestinians walking away is false.

please provide us with your solution

 

[bubaghanush]

please provide us with your solution

One state solution! Not realistic.

If I had total control here's what I'd do:

Israel annexes West Bank and dissolves PA. Palestinians who swear loyalty to Israel get citizenship (same thing as East Jerusalem Palestinians). Over a generation a majority will agree and old guard Palestinian leadership loses power in West Bank.

Economic investment in Gaza, incentivize Gulf states with real mobility freedom of movement - airport and seaport. Extremist Hamas loses power as ordinary Palestinians in Gaza has some glimmer of hope and economic stability and aren't so desperate. As Palestinian power/leadership moderates, consider it as it's own independent country.

Israel still maintains Jewish majority.

Yes I know not realistic at all.

 

[SSdoc33]

One state solution! Not realistic.

If I had total control here's what I'd do:

Israel annexes West Bank. Palestinians who swear loyalty to Israel get citizenship (same thing as East Jerusalem Palestinians). Over a generation a two a majority will agree and extremists elements lose power in West Bank.

Economic investment in Gaza, incentivize Gulf states with real mobility freedom of movement - airport and seaport. Extremist Hamas loses power as ordinary Palestinians in Gaza has some glimmer of hope and economic stability and aren't so desperate. As Palestinian power/leadership moderates, consider it as it's own independent country.

Israel still maintains Jewish majority.

Yes I know not realistic at all.

neither side is reasonable. thats the problem

israel needs to stop settlements
arabs/palestinians need to stop jihadding and terrorizing.

IMHO, a two state solution is the answer with loads and loads of caveats and guarantees. let the west bank and gaza have legitimacy so they can eff up on their own, meanwhile israel will iron-dome themselves and ideally the international community will hold them to their agreements

 

[bubaghanush]

neither side is reasonable. thats the problem

israel needs to stop settlements
arabs/palestinians need to stop jihadding and terrorizing.

IMHO, a two state solution is the answer with loads and loads of caveats and guarantees. let the west bank and gaza have legitimacy so they can eff up on their own, meanwhile israel will iron-dome themselves and ideally the international community will hold them to their agreements

Agreed neither side is reasonable.

But two-state solution is impossible in the West Bank. Now you have second and third generation Israelis on settlements and they will never leave. There would be civil war. And a spider web Palestinian state will never be viable. I'm sure you've seen the map but for others.

Explainer: Israel, annexation and the West Bank

Key questions about Israel's plan to annex parts of the occupied West Bank answered.

www.bbc.com

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Regarding first sentence, no there were no settlements 1967. I am referring to settlements built post-1967.

Oslo accords were meant to be a 5-year temporary agreement for Israel to transfer complete control to Palestinians including Area C. Area C makes up 60% of the West Bank. It completely surrounds all Palestinian territioy and contains hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Building settlements is illegal in Area C according to international law. See map of Oslo accords:

View attachment 423419

Israel disengaged Gaza but maintained complete lands, air, sea control, water, power, economic control with intermittent military incursion. Kudos on Ariel Sharon for pushing this through, but it did not result in any improvement in quality of life for Gazans. It was always classified as under military occupation.

Oct 7th and Hamas atrocities are despicable and inexcusable. Recognizing they were formed 20 years after Israeli occupation began as an extremist byproduct is not justifying them in any way, but is understanding the historical context of why they formed.

Right, settlements began in 1967 after the west bank was captured in the six day war. See my note above regarding war. International law does not mean much to me, especially when it's expected that only one side abides by it. There is international law, but in reality it's just a set of guidelines that countries will abide by or violate depending on how it benefits them. It also gives more powerful nations a "legal" precedent to use against weaker nations when they feel the need to do so.

Considering the history, you cannot expect Israel to go from zero to 60 in 5 seconds. Relationships and trust take time to develop, especially in this situation and disengagement was a step in the right direction. Israel backed off, tore down settlements and forcibly removed Israelis at times. Jews invested tens of millions of dollars in greenhouses to help kick start the Gazan economy with the hope of placating and moderating Arabs.

There was to be a highway connecting the west bank and gaza for goods and people to move about, crossings were to open, Israel and the PA were to negotiate access, etc. but how'd the gazans respond? This peace gesture should have been reciprocated, but what actually happened? The Gazans saw this as weakness, claimed complete and total victory, and launched rockets at Israel, so Israel locked it down. What else is a country supposed to do?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Regarding first sentence, no there were no settlements 1967. I am referring to settlements built post-1967.

Oslo accords were meant to be a 5-year temporary agreement for Israel to transfer complete control to Palestinians including Area C. Area C makes up 60% of the West Bank. It completely surrounds all Palestinian territioy and contains hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Building settlements is illegal in Area C according to international law. See map of Oslo accords:

View attachment 423419

Israel disengaged Gaza but maintained complete lands, air, sea control, water, power, economic control with intermittent military incursion. Kudos on Ariel Sharon for pushing this through, but it did not result in any improvement in quality of life for Gazans. It was always classified as under military occupation.

Oct 7th and Hamas atrocities are despicable and inexcusable. Recognizing they were formed 20 years after Israeli occupation began as an extremist byproduct is not justifying them in any way, but is understanding the historical context of why they formed.

This is where we differ. Its a spiral for sure but you see Israeli occupation as causing Pal violence. I see Pal violence as causing Israeli occupation.

 

[hyperalgesia]

One state solution! Not realistic.

If I had total control here's what I'd do:

Israel annexes West Bank and dissolves PA. Palestinians who swear loyalty to Israel get citizenship (same thing as East Jerusalem Palestinians). Over a generation a majority will agree and old guard Palestinian leadership loses power in West Bank.

Economic investment in Gaza, incentivize Gulf states with real mobility freedom of movement - airport and seaport. Extremist Hamas loses power as ordinary Palestinians in Gaza has some glimmer of hope and economic stability and aren't so desperate. As Palestinian power/leadership moderates, consider it as it's own independent country.

Israel still maintains Jewish majority.

Yes I know not realistic at all.

I wonder if you could offer a second pathway for Palestinians who don't want to swear loyalty to Israel. Their land ownership should still be respected and property ownership laws should apply (vs aggressive settlers) - maybe like a green card status - if they choose?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

My ideal solution, which won't happen now, is to displace the Palis into Egyptian land in the Sinai. There are very livable unoccupied regions there and the Egyptian and Pali cultures are very similar. The religion and the language are the same. The international community including Israel should then compensate Egypt for every Pali that is taken in.

Displacement sucks but people move all of the time. This is nothing new to the world and usually there is no compensation. Build cities, villages, and farms for them and help them get started. It may temporarily blow, but it's much better than the current situation.

Egypt is given billions by the US so this can be dangled as a motivator.

Trump came close to this but unfortunately it didn't happen.

 

[clubdeac]

My ideal solution, which won't happen now, is to displace the Palis into Egyptian land in the Sinai. There are very livable unoccupied regions there and the Egyptian and Pali cultures are very similar. The religion and the language are the same. The international community including Israel should then compensate Egypt for every Pali that is taken in.

Displacement sucks but people move all of the time. This is nothing new to the world and usually there is no compensation. Build cities, villages, and farms for them and help them get started. It may temporarily blow, but it's much better than the current situation.

Egypt is given billions by the US so this can be dangled as a motivator.

Trump came close to this but unfortunately it didn't happen.

Yet no other neighboring country inch including Egypt wants anything to do with the Palestinians. There’s a reason no other Muslim country is welcoming these people into their borders

 

[bubaghanush]

This is where we differ. Its a spiral for sure but you see Israeli occupation as causing Pal violence. I see Pal violence as causing Israeli occupation.

Fair. At this point does it really matter? Both are causing more and both need to stop. In times of relative calm and little violence, there was still massive settlement building. PLO and Hamas have been horrible.

The settlement building is irreversible though and it has changed what can be a realistic peace plan now.

I wonder if you could offer a second pathway for Palestinians who don't want to swear loyalty to Israel. Their land ownership should still be respected and property ownership laws should apply (vs aggressive settlers) - maybe like a green card status - if they choose?

This is sort of the status of East Jerusalem Palestinians. They can go and work and enter Israel. They don't get benefits and they can't vote. They are at risk of house seizure, building and movement restrictions. Implementing some law that guarantees some minimal rights could go a long way.

 

[bubaghanush]

Yet no other neighboring country inch including Egypt wants anything to do with the Palestinians. There’s a reason no other Muslim country is welcoming these people into their borders

There you go demonizing a whole population again. It is more complicated than that. The Israeli -palestinian conflict is highly charged in the middle East. Hamas has links to Muslim Brotherhood which Egypt vehemently opposes. That could lead to their own civil war.

Palestinian leadership is extreme and corrupt (Hamas, PA). No organic new leadership has been possible for the past decades. Any protest or political gathering is shut down by both Israel and Hamas or the PA.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Fair. At this point does it really matter? Both are causing more and both need to stop. In times of relative calm and little violence, there was still massive settlement building. PLO and Hamas have been horrible.

The settlement building is irreversible though and it has changed what can be a realistic peace plan now.


This is sort of the status of East Jerusalem Palestinians. They can go and work and enter Israel. They don't get benefits and they can't vote. They are at risk of house seizure, building and movement restrictions. Implementing some law that guarantees some minimal rights could go a long way.

No, it doesn't matter. Nor does history. The bottom line is that there are two groups of people there and neither one is going anywhere.

 

[mille125]

No, it doesn't matter. Nor does history. The bottom line is that there are two groups of people there and neither one is going anywhere.

One of your statements that I can agree with.

 

[Ducttape]

Yes, they did attack and imprison white Americans. In fact, they took them as slaves. Plenty of first hand account books on this subject. So, duh, you're a dumb ass, lol!

More importantly, what did natives do to each other? They warred with each other. They murdered each other. They stole land and conquered each other. They took their prisoners as slaves. They sacrificed their captives' children to their Gods. The list goes on and on. This was the way of the world back then.

and the british never attacked the spanish. who never attacked the french. who never attacked germania. who never attacked the russians. who never attacked the swedes.

oh and the brits never conquered the welsh. or decimated the scots. or never invaded, ruled, or forcibly starved the irish

In your opinion, which you'll refuse to answer because you either don't know the answer or you don't want to admit it (probably a combo of both), how did Cortes' men of a couple of thousand destroy an Azetc empire of a few million?

Cortez band of men destroyed the Aztec empire by deception, superior firearms and disease. he made an alliance with the Tlaxcalans upon arrival in the new world, longstanding enemies of the Aztecs.

unintentionally, he spread smallpox that devastated the peoples of the Aztec empire, killing millions.

he kidnapped Moctezuma after Moctezuma invited Cortes to stay as a guest (1 year after Cortes' arrival in the new world) and essentially usurped power. that was the catalyst for breakup of the empire. his brother took over but died of smallpox.

the spaniards then sieged Tenochtitlan with his Tlaxcalans allies and that victory lead to the complete fall of the Aztec empire, as Moctezuma's sons were killed.