Israel/Palestine thread

Freedom lovers don't hire people with guns to shoot people on boats who haven't done anything to them.

Freedom lovers hire people with guns to protect their property.

You're a standard right-wing nativist, there's nothing remotely libertarian about your politics.

This is quite absurd as i repeatedly wrote i am in favor of making it a lot easier for skilled people to enter western countries and become citizens .

I also don't like many of my fellow citizens nor i consider them preferable to good (= skilled, intelligent, libertarian leaning) foreign people so i am very far from nationalism or nativism.

I am also in favor of legalizing all drugs production, sale and consumption, and in favour of legal euthanasia for self conscious people.

And i would like a massive increase of house arrest instead of jailing , something most rightwing people disagree with.

I would also love to see social security completly canceled (mandatory savings allocated how the government wants is an abomination), again something most rightwing people disagree with

Oh and i am against the idea that is legal for the state to determine rules for jobs (yes this includes physicians, lawyers and so on): AGAIN something rightwing people disagree with

The above is a very normal list of libertarian ideas.

This made me chuckle

why?

-

I know what you meant but it still got a chuckle.

Hm connotation 2) is exactly what i intended. Deliberate and self-aware.

Could have written legally capacious but i don't know if that's something they use in anglo jurisprudence

2 is second for a reason. Easily enough understood if one knows English isn't your first language, but not how a native speaker would put it. I don't think there is a great way to put it though, maybe "of sound mind".

What's the "legal language" way to say "legally capable to enter contracts willingly", is there any?

Ianal. "Of sound mind" is what they say on TV and in movies when they are talking about Wills. It's also pretty clear non-legaleze.

Eta: Googling suggests "contractual capacity", but that would have been weird to say in that spot.

Plenty of Men of Honour agree with you. Such as this Bruno Kirby looking mfr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Ro...

You guys should be more selective on who you place under house arrest. Just sayin'.

I don't think they had ankle monitors at the time

Touche. 😀

Is your point that he was able to do these things because he was only under house arrest? If so, have you ever heard of the Mexican Mafia or the Aryan Brotherhood?

No my point was that house arrest should be for certain crimes, which aren't strangulation, mass murder and large scale heroin trafficking and he was able to do these things due to bent doctors, who exist due to the mafias being a shadow government in Italy where some mafia bosses are actual doctors and indeed noted surgeons and yes, I've heard of the Mexican Mafia and Aryan Brotherhood, as in the prison gangs as opposed to the House Arrest gangs and we're getting off topic, (of which I'm at fault too) the thread is about Israel Bad, remember?

we are in the offtopic of the offtopic of the offtopic which started because i got asked personal questions in the israeli thread

'Of sound mind' or, in medical matters, 'capable of informed consent'.

White supremacists who want to separate themselves from society and then pay people who have less than them to protect them from violence

Yea then y’all get robbed by the people with the guns.

Idiots

Not actually true. The Israelis refused to cede sovereignty over East Jerusalem, only offering Palestinian 'custody' of some vague ceremonial kind for the Temple Mount and supposed civic 'administration' of the Muslim and Christian quarters (like emptying the bins), all under Israeli rule, which they knew would have to be rejected. The Israelis demanded a permanent military presence in the 'Palestinian state', with the right to additional troop surges at will, and also demanded unlimited military overflight, while the Palestinian state could have no military forces at all beyond armed police. The West Bank was to be split into separate Bantustans by Israeli-controlled zones and there was to be no free access between the West Bank and Gaza. This meant that in effect there would be no Palestinian state, which was precisely the intention. (The same Israeli imperialist view expressed by Netanyahu: 'They must agree to be ruled by us.') The Israelis also refused any right of return (and counter-factually denied responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel), even though the PLO offered a moderated mechanism for the right of return so as not to overwhelm the Jewish majority in Israel. The Israelis very deliberately set Camp David up to fail -- because they just won't concede their 1967 gains in Jerusalem and the West Bank -- and then blamed the PLO. It hardly matters what Jeffrey Epstein's pal Clinton says, because he only held the conference as a vanity project for his 'legacy', hence his massive huff when it failed, and he was obviously on the Israeli side.

I studied international relations about 25 years ago, though I doubt this has changed a lot.

At the time, the dominant school of thought in the US was called "realism." It argues that IR is a world of anarchy with no laws and little to no morality. A Hobbesian war of all against all. Kissinger was often said to exemplify this philosophy, but it is pervasive in MSM, government, think tanks and even academia. IR is an exception to the rule of lefty college professors. Anyway, I think that this is what you have identified.

I guess it applies best in extreme cases like WW2, where it really is all out war for survival.

There were 2 reasons I think it is ridiculously wrong in most cases. 1) In every other polisci class, you learn about competing interests, then realism posits a clear national interest. Realists think, for example, that it was OK for the US to have hundreds of thousands of people tortured, raped and killed in Central America because it was in our "national interest." But it had no benefit for 99.99% of us, so I find that silly.

2) I think morality is important and most moral systems don't permit you to do horrible things just because no authority prevents it. There was an interesting article 10 years ago about how Americans have shifted from being very anti-torture and reluctant to kill civilians to being more open to torture and 25% in favor of using nuclear weapons against "terrorism." We're becoming the bad guys.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/25/tor...

This is the problem with Sklansky's argument to me. I don't think you can make a utilitarian calculation to torture people or murder children and then just go back to normal. And I think most would agree that the US is an increasingly cruel and violent society.

First of all, jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 and nobody cared so when jordan ceded Connell to Israel 17 years later in not sure why israel should just flat out be required to find it back

Most of the offers were oral so it is hard to know exactly was offered and what was rejected

A right of return to israel as part of a 2 state solution is beyond ridiculous though

Jordan has custody of the temple mount today with the agreement that Israelis can pray at the wall. This is what was offered to the Palestinians as well

Some accounts say the Palestinian West Bank would be mostly contiguous besides ax main highway from israel to Jerusalem that both israelis and Palestinians would have access to, and another highway would be built from gaza to the west Bank to connect the 2

You and others seem to think Israel should give up all the land, go back to 1967 borders, get nothing in return and pretend 20 years of war never happened and Israeli security somehow wouldn't be an issue

I have never been robbed by police or the militaries where I live

If I get a ticket and they didn't defraud me, they are right.

That wouldn't be robbery. Common property has rules and if you don't follow them you deserve to be punished.