I support Ukraines idealism but I think Zelenskyy is an ass.
He courted aligning with the West including trying to join NATO knowing full well Putin wouldn't support. That idealism has caused 100,000s to die.
Three years later is becoming obvious how stupid his position was to most people.
I live in CA. My fight is to get Newsom to tell the federal government that CA doesn't need its help on anything but national defense, a common currency and alignment on international policy. I support repealing the 16th amendment and having CA collect all taxes from its residents and give the federal government money for services we agree with.
Other states in the country can align with CA if they desire.
I support the ideals of DOGE but I'm not thrilled with the tactics. But redong the federal government is way way way overdue.
I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state. Many Palestinians who are already Israeli citizen clearly prefer the Israeli state over Hamas. If Palestinians don't support, like the Muslims who left Syria, Lebanon and other Muslims countries, they can immigrate to their preferred Muslim country. Its interesting that Muslim countries would not support.
I understand that you wouldn't agree with that view. But its the only view that I believe will work in the long run. Anything else (a.l.a. two state solution or harping on Israel being a colonist or committing Genocide) is meaningless.
“I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state.”
This is fundamentally incorrect. Again, I beg you to actually ask yourself if your hunches are correct and do a little reading on a topic before confidently opining on it. The entire reason Israel was created is that Jews were a minority in Palestine and couldn’t create a Jewish state without forcing Arabs out of what would become Israel.
One of the main sources of strife in this conflict is the Israeli desire to ensure that Jews remain the majority in Israel, which they eventually want to be all of Palestine.
The only way the Israelis can absorb the West Bank and Gaza and remain a “Jewish state” is by continuing the campaign of ethnic cleansing that they’ve been carrying out since 1948. Even before that, in fact.
Many Jews believe their historic claim to the land is more important than the last 100 years. You have a difference of opinion. The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other. Therefore you have no basis but your view of what Israel is to justify your perspective.
Israel was not "created". Jews migrated to the area. They purchased property and also squatted on areas. The area had very little property ownership formality. The Ottoman empire owned most of the land. The British did not have a specific proposal on how the land would be transitioned when the Ottoman empire collapsed. The British certainly favored western Jews given the Ottoman empire supported Hitler. Seems kinda an obvious concept.
The Jews living there declared Israel to be a state. That caused the war. Israel won the war. They ask the UN for recognition. The UN recognized Israel as a state. Might makes right.
The countries surrounding Israel didn't want Israel to exist as a state. They went to war with Israel. They lost in every case. Might makes right. Israel agreed to give the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the peace deal. Jordan relinquished the West Bank. Egypt relinquished the Gaza strip. Israel ruled the Gaza strip. Then left. Hamas took over. Has a charter to eliminate the state of Israel. They attacked. They lost biggly. I doubt Israel will ever relinquish control of the Gaza again. Might makes right.
Hezbollah attacked. They lost biggly. Might makes right. The Houthi's attacked Israel. Saudi Arabia does not support the Houthi's. Israel does not support the Houthi's. Trump is dropping bombs on the Houthi's. Might makes right.
Iran is continuing to threaten Israel and the US. Trump is saying that if they don't relinquish their nuclear program, they will be bombed. Might makes right.
You may not like the human condition. Your idealism does not change the human condition. You and Hamas are trying to use the UN and the ICC to gain might against Israel and the US. Good luck with that strategy. They are both meaningless organizations from my perspective. Israel, the US, Russia, and China will never relinquish their military might to the UN or ICC. That's why they are meaningless orgs. But go ahead and be idealistic. That will work out as well for you as it has with the Palestinians.
Israel has a number of proposals on how to maintain being a Jewish state with a Muslim majority. You are uniformed. Alternately, they can just do what the Muslims did in the 8th century and state Palestinian Muslims can leave or conform.
Once again, this conversation proves in spades the reality of the human condition. You and I are not close to agreeing. I align with those who have the might. You don't have the might behind your view. You're trying to use the power of the UN and ICC to get more might behind your view. It won't work.
"The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other."
Wait, aren't you the one who's always ridiculing organisations like the UN and the ICC? And here you are using them as an authority? Can you please make up your mind where you stand on literally any topic?
Anyway, I'm sorry man, I can't keep correcting your glaring and basic failures of knowledge on things like this. It's exhausting. You don't understand this conflict at all, even simple, uncontested historical facts about it, because almost everything you think you know is Israeli propaganda. And when I point this out to you, you just move on to the next thing without ever seriously engaging with it.
So all of your arguments, while they might seem reasonable to you, are built on completely incorrect foundations.
I invite you, as I've invited you several times, to actually read what the UN, for example, has to say about this. But I suspect you won't.
You broadly claim I'm incorrect, claim you're exhausted, claim contradictions, but do not include any facts.
I include many facts but you don't counter any of them.
What the UN has to claim about "this". What is "this"?
I have read the UN human rights charter. I know exactly what it says. It protects individual rights in your classic view of rights at the same time it protects the right to religion of the individual and in community. Many religious positions are at odds with the individual rights? Who is right.
I close with the quote from JC Superstar I have left you with before.
It's interesting that you can only parse this feedback, that I and several others have given you over the years, as a "debate" tactic.
You've read hundreds of my conversations. Is this a "debate tactic" you've seen me use with other people? No. I say things like this to you, and again, I'm not the only one, because you are one of the most consistent and belligerent examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen.
To be extremely clear, we don't both have "truths." We both have OPINIONS. And yes, opinions can be more or less correct. They can also be totally incorrect because they're based on nonsense or gut feelings that have never been tested against facts or evidence.
That's why you say obviously incorrect things about a range of topics with absolute and totally unearned confidence, you appear to take nothing onboard when you're corrected, and often, though thankfully not in this case, do so in the most arrogant and combative tone possible.
It is, therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to have a "debate" with you, because you don't know enough, and I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time digging up facts and evidence to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Why on Earth would I do that over and over again for a guy on the internet who has proven himself unwilling to learn? That's why I end up deciding to stop wasting my time.
Things MIGHT be a little better if you approached them as simple conversations instead of "debates." If you had the good sense to recognise when you're not particularly well-informed about a topic and approached conversations with a little humility. You might even learn something. But I've already suggested that several times, and it also seems to be beyond you.
I'm community/state focused at this point.
I support Ukraines idealism but I think Zelenskyy is an ass.
He courted aligning with the West including trying to join NATO knowing full well Putin wouldn't support. That idealism has caused 100,000s to die.
Three years later is becoming obvious how stupid his position was to most people.
I live in CA. My fight is to get Newsom to tell the federal government that CA doesn't need its help on anything but national defense, a common currency and alignment on international policy. I support repealing the 16th amendment and having CA collect all taxes from its residents and give the federal government money for services we agree with.
Other states in the country can align with CA if they desire.
I support the ideals of DOGE but I'm not thrilled with the tactics. But redong the federal government is way way way overdue.
I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state. Many Palestinians who are already Israeli citizen clearly prefer the Israeli state over Hamas. If Palestinians don't support, like the Muslims who left Syria, Lebanon and other Muslims countries, they can immigrate to their preferred Muslim country. Its interesting that Muslim countries would not support.
I understand that you wouldn't agree with that view. But its the only view that I believe will work in the long run. Anything else (a.l.a. two state solution or harping on Israel being a colonist or committing Genocide) is meaningless.
“I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state.”
This is fundamentally incorrect. Again, I beg you to actually ask yourself if your hunches are correct and do a little reading on a topic before confidently opining on it. The entire reason Israel was created is that Jews were a minority in Palestine and couldn’t create a Jewish state without forcing Arabs out of what would become Israel.
One of the main sources of strife in this conflict is the Israeli desire to ensure that Jews remain the majority in Israel, which they eventually want to be all of Palestine.
The only way the Israelis can absorb the West Bank and Gaza and remain a “Jewish state” is by continuing the campaign of ethnic cleansing that they’ve been carrying out since 1948. Even before that, in fact.
Many Jews believe their historic claim to the land is more important than the last 100 years. You have a difference of opinion. The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other. Therefore you have no basis but your view of what Israel is to justify your perspective.
Israel was not "created". Jews migrated to the area. They purchased property and also squatted on areas. The area had very little property ownership formality. The Ottoman empire owned most of the land. The British did not have a specific proposal on how the land would be transitioned when the Ottoman empire collapsed. The British certainly favored western Jews given the Ottoman empire supported Hitler. Seems kinda an obvious concept.
The Jews living there declared Israel to be a state. That caused the war. Israel won the war. They ask the UN for recognition. The UN recognized Israel as a state. Might makes right.
The countries surrounding Israel didn't want Israel to exist as a state. They went to war with Israel. They lost in every case. Might makes right. Israel agreed to give the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the peace deal. Jordan relinquished the West Bank. Egypt relinquished the Gaza strip. Israel ruled the Gaza strip. Then left. Hamas took over. Has a charter to eliminate the state of Israel. They attacked. They lost biggly. I doubt Israel will ever relinquish control of the Gaza again. Might makes right.
Hezbollah attacked. They lost biggly. Might makes right. The Houthi's attacked Israel. Saudi Arabia does not support the Houthi's. Israel does not support the Houthi's. Trump is dropping bombs on the Houthi's. Might makes right.
Iran is continuing to threaten Israel and the US. Trump is saying that if they don't relinquish their nuclear program, they will be bombed. Might makes right.
You may not like the human condition. Your idealism does not change the human condition. You and Hamas are trying to use the UN and the ICC to gain might against Israel and the US. Good luck with that strategy. They are both meaningless organizations from my perspective. Israel, the US, Russia, and China will never relinquish their military might to the UN or ICC. That's why they are meaningless orgs. But go ahead and be idealistic. That will work out as well for you as it has with the Palestinians.
Israel has a number of proposals on how to maintain being a Jewish state with a Muslim majority. You are uniformed. Alternately, they can just do what the Muslims did in the 8th century and state Palestinian Muslims can leave or conform.
Once again, this conversation proves in spades the reality of the human condition. You and I are not close to agreeing. I align with those who have the might. You don't have the might behind your view. You're trying to use the power of the UN and ICC to get more might behind your view. It won't work.
"The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other."
Wait, aren't you the one who's always ridiculing organisations like the UN and the ICC? And here you are using them as an authority? Can you please make up your mind where you stand on literally any topic?
Anyway, I'm sorry man, I can't keep correcting your glaring and basic failures of knowledge on things like this. It's exhausting. You don't understand this conflict at all, even simple, uncontested historical facts about it, because almost everything you think you know is Israeli propaganda. And when I point this out to you, you just move on to the next thing without ever seriously engaging with it.
So all of your arguments, while they might seem reasonable to you, are built on completely incorrect foundations.
I invite you, as I've invited you several times, to actually read what the UN, for example, has to say about this. But I suspect you won't.
Its interesting how you debate.
You broadly claim I'm incorrect, claim you're exhausted, claim contradictions, but do not include any facts.
I include many facts but you don't counter any of them.
What the UN has to claim about "this". What is "this"?
I have read the UN human rights charter. I know exactly what it says. It protects individual rights in your classic view of rights at the same time it protects the right to religion of the individual and in community. Many religious positions are at odds with the individual rights? Who is right.
I close with the quote from JC Superstar I have left you with before.
But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths - are mine the same as yours?
This quote encapsulates the human condition.
"Its interesting how you debate."
It's interesting that you can only parse this feedback, that I and several others have given you over the years, as a "debate" tactic.
You've read hundreds of my conversations. Is this a "debate tactic" you've seen me use with other people? No. I say things like this to you, and again, I'm not the only one, because you are one of the most consistent and belligerent examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen.
To be extremely clear, we don't both have "truths." We both have OPINIONS. And yes, opinions can be more or less correct. They can also be totally incorrect because they're based on nonsense or gut feelings that have never been tested against facts or evidence.
That's why you say obviously incorrect things about a range of topics with absolute and totally unearned confidence, you appear to take nothing onboard when you're corrected, and often, though thankfully not in this case, do so in the most arrogant and combative tone possible.
It is, therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to have a "debate" with you, because you don't know enough, and I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time digging up facts and evidence to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Why on Earth would I do that over and over again for a guy on the internet who has proven himself unwilling to learn? That's why I end up deciding to stop wasting my time.
Things MIGHT be a little better if you approached them as simple conversations instead of "debates." If you had the good sense to recognise when you're not particularly well-informed about a topic and approached conversations with a little humility. You might even learn something. But I've already suggested that several times, and it also seems to be beyond you.