They mean "free of Jews". That's been spelled out black letter in various charters.
If we look at a map the space "from the river to the sea" is all of Israel.
To be fair, removing Israel (i.e. by turning it into Palestine) over all that area doesn't technically require genocide. The "colonial" rhetoric implies (and sometimes states) that the Jews will flee rather than die.
There are a lot of Palestinian supporters that believe exactly this.
There are other Palestinian supporters who don't understand this is what "From the River to the Sea" means.
If we totally shut down the conversation then we're just using power to enforce our view, and we should expect them to do the same if they get the ability.
If we're interested in changing hearts then we need to have the conversation and let the ignorant protesters understand what exactly they're suggesting.
I think there's a lot of substance to what you said and you said it well. I voted for Harris anyway because of Jan 6th and the fake electors. That takes us past "corrupt politician" territory and into "overturning elections" territory.
pillsy: Harris is a pretty good candidate doing a pretty good job.
I don't. Her previous run generated zero nomination votes. In her interviews I hear a lot of non-answers.
Her big strengths are she's a black woman (apparently it's their turn) and she's not Trump.
In an alternative universe, Team Blue would have realized Joe wasn't up to running much earlier (rather than constantly claiming he's totally fine) and had an actual nomination process.
ISIS is a renamed "Al Qaida in Iraq" which means it's a branch of Al Qaida.
Al Qaida is the creation of Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Billionaire religious fanatic.
It's certainly reasonable to say ISIS had a lot of growth because of what we did in Iraq. It's also reasonable to say a lot of the origin of the whole fanatical Islam movement has something to do with the crazy amounts of money the Saudi's spent promoting it back in the day.
Their thinking was they'll buy off their zealots and get a pass on running the country.
You're thinking of Russia. Iran's rate is 1.66 https://www.statista.com/statistics/294115/iran-fertility-rate/
The problem in both places is "current leadership makes the economy suck". That's a description of both the problem, the solution, and why leadership won't do it.
The Saudis are well down the path of being corrupted by Western values although your experience can vary wildly. They managed to accidently create ISIS by trying to pay off their fanatics. I think they've been using state resources to quietly deradicalize because the Princes like being in power.
Iran was well down that path under the Shaw, which is in part what led to the revolution by the fanatics. The problem of course is after the fanatics are in charge it's hard to remove them.
The Iranian people understand that the priests are corrupt, self serving dictators and would vote them out if they could.
Victimhood increases morality and grants ethical superiority. The Palestinians have a boot on their neck, ergo they are ethically superior to the Israelis.
The Economist (an EU newspaper) and the betting sites are currently predicting a Trump victory, but not by much and not outside the margin of error. A few weeks ago they were predicting Harris.
Ergo this is a very tight race but Trump is gaining ground.
Israel's core priority is to remain Jewish, that creates conflict with everyone who insists that's not acceptable. Until either it or it's enemies are willing to yield the conflict will continue.
Irans' core priority is to promote radical Shia. That includes not yielding to uppity voters who would otherwise vote out the clerics. That also includes trying to overthrow the various non-Shia governments.
Until it's willing to yield on it's core principle or all the surrounding states are willing to put in Shia despots, there are going to be problems.
That doesn't mean the best solution is for us to invade and use military force (i.e. the neocon way). However IMHO we need to have realistic expectations and an understanding of what the problems are and why they exist.
The problem isn't that it's not true now. The problem is what was said before Trump wasn't true but now there is nothing worse to say.
After you've tried to claim that Romney is so bad Hit.ler comparisons are appropriate (and I found a list of those from Obama's people), then presumably everyone to his Right is also Hit.ler.
Trump's Chief of Staff (and various other former Trump staff members) calling him a fascist and unfit for office should be a big deal.
But GOP voters expect Blue to make these claims at about now. It happens every Presidential election. Ergo it won't get much news time and we shouldn't expect people to listen.
(and were never offered one when they had the temerity to throw out the government we chose for them).
This is laughably wrong. It never occurred to Carter that throwing out their dictator meant we couldn't deal with them. From his point of view them having a democratic revolution was a good thing. He expected that we'd have good relations.
RE: Saudis v Iranians
Most of the governments in the Middle East are Arab and Sunni. Iran is Persian and Shia. The goal of promoting Shia power/dictatorships is a problem in terms of regional stability.
That has nothing to do with their relationship with us, except that our goal of regional stability puts us at odds.
that’re more opinions and alt-history speculation than actual fact
Pot, meet Kettle.
By W's speech they had a 20+ history of being a regional bad actor and showcasing they viewed their core values and long term goals were totally opposed to ours.
Since that speech they've continued on that path to the point where the Arab countries are willing to make peace with Israel.
Claiming that W's speech moved the needle requires a lot of heavy lifting that you haven't come close to doing.
From the point of view of serious Islamists (and Putin), we're the aggressive ones who are attacking them.
Our culture is very aggressive, seductive, and assimulistic. We spend many billions creating movies advertising it.
Our core ideas that people (woman and religious minorities) should have rights and the gov should serve the people are extreme problems for empires and/or despot(s).
From their point of view, we're just another empire and all these movies are propaganda designed to undermine their way of life. Ditto the idea of government reform, free elections, and so on.
Iran views itself as surrounded by enemies and it's doing what it must to survive.
Any deal we make with them is going to fall apart because of who they are and what they are trying to do. That's a long term problem and pointing to a short term deal isn't going to change that.
It's true that they were well behaved when we had an army in Iraq (and could maybe overturn their government) and W could have made a deal with them. But that deal would have only lasted as long as our wrecking crew was right there.
Since our army isn't there anymore, whatever deal we could have made would have fallen apart by now.
The Saudi's are heinous but mostly interested in preserving the status quo. The Iranians want to flip over the apple cart.
The "nuclear deal" that we would make with the Iranians ignores both that they've constantly broken their previous nuclear deal(s) and lied about it. If that weren't bad enough, it would also do nothing about their support of terrorism and efforts to promote revolutions and/or failed states.
So we'd allow them to rebuild their economy and turn a blind eye to them destabilizing all the other countries in the ME.
Until they lose the desire to turn every state in the ME into Lebanon, our core interests are going to be opposed which makes deals a problem.
On “The Way Through is Donald Trump for President”
Chris: Who knew freedom meant genocide?
They mean "free of Jews". That's been spelled out black letter in various charters.
If we look at a map the space "from the river to the sea" is all of Israel.
To be fair, removing Israel (i.e. by turning it into Palestine) over all that area doesn't technically require genocide. The "colonial" rhetoric implies (and sometimes states) that the Jews will flee rather than die.
"
I'm more worried about SNL thinking Harris' stands are worthy of ridicule.
"
There are a lot of Palestinian supporters that believe exactly this.
There are other Palestinian supporters who don't understand this is what "From the River to the Sea" means.
If we totally shut down the conversation then we're just using power to enforce our view, and we should expect them to do the same if they get the ability.
If we're interested in changing hearts then we need to have the conversation and let the ignorant protesters understand what exactly they're suggesting.
"
It is worth listening to opposing arguments just to know what they are. I could probably write something supporting Hamas although I don't.
And we also have the problem that a lot of these arguments aren't wrong.
The Palestinians really are repressed.
Harris gives a lot of word salad answers that make her look unserious. The media and Team Blue claimed Biden was just fine up until he went on stage.
"
Well put Koz. Thank you.
I think there's a lot of substance to what you said and you said it well. I voted for Harris anyway because of Jan 6th and the fake electors. That takes us past "corrupt politician" territory and into "overturning elections" territory.
On “What If Trump Wins?”
58% v 42% puts us into "Reagan vs Mondale" territory (59 v 41). The smaller number might take a state or two.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/28/2024”
We'll find out this was a random lunatic.
On “What If Trump Wins?”
Harris and Trump are closer to being garage bands than Taylor Swift.
"
Some lawyer will reword it for him. He won't get everything in a blanket. But he'll get enough, especially against China, that he'll claim victory.
"
pillsy: Harris is a pretty good candidate doing a pretty good job.
I don't. Her previous run generated zero nomination votes. In her interviews I hear a lot of non-answers.
Her big strengths are she's a black woman (apparently it's their turn) and she's not Trump.
In an alternative universe, Team Blue would have realized Joe wasn't up to running much earlier (rather than constantly claiming he's totally fine) and had an actual nomination process.
"
A lot of voters are low information and the vast majority vote on emotion.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
ISIS is a renamed "Al Qaida in Iraq" which means it's a branch of Al Qaida.
Al Qaida is the creation of Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Billionaire religious fanatic.
It's certainly reasonable to say ISIS had a lot of growth because of what we did in Iraq. It's also reasonable to say a lot of the origin of the whole fanatical Islam movement has something to do with the crazy amounts of money the Saudi's spent promoting it back in the day.
Their thinking was they'll buy off their zealots and get a pass on running the country.
"
You're thinking of Russia. Iran's rate is 1.66 https://www.statista.com/statistics/294115/iran-fertility-rate/
The problem in both places is "current leadership makes the economy suck". That's a description of both the problem, the solution, and why leadership won't do it.
"
The Saudis are well down the path of being corrupted by Western values although your experience can vary wildly. They managed to accidently create ISIS by trying to pay off their fanatics. I think they've been using state resources to quietly deradicalize because the Princes like being in power.
Iran was well down that path under the Shaw, which is in part what led to the revolution by the fanatics. The problem of course is after the fanatics are in charge it's hard to remove them.
The Iranian people understand that the priests are corrupt, self serving dictators and would vote them out if they could.
"
Victimhood increases morality and grants ethical superiority. The Palestinians have a boot on their neck, ergo they are ethically superior to the Israelis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
The Economist (an EU newspaper) and the betting sites are currently predicting a Trump victory, but not by much and not outside the margin of error. A few weeks ago they were predicting Harris.
Ergo this is a very tight race but Trump is gaining ground.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
Israel's core priority is to remain Jewish, that creates conflict with everyone who insists that's not acceptable. Until either it or it's enemies are willing to yield the conflict will continue.
Irans' core priority is to promote radical Shia. That includes not yielding to uppity voters who would otherwise vote out the clerics. That also includes trying to overthrow the various non-Shia governments.
Until it's willing to yield on it's core principle or all the surrounding states are willing to put in Shia despots, there are going to be problems.
That doesn't mean the best solution is for us to invade and use military force (i.e. the neocon way). However IMHO we need to have realistic expectations and an understanding of what the problems are and why they exist.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
The problem isn't that it's not true now. The problem is what was said before Trump wasn't true but now there is nothing worse to say.
After you've tried to claim that Romney is so bad Hit.ler comparisons are appropriate (and I found a list of those from Obama's people), then presumably everyone to his Right is also Hit.ler.
Trump's Chief of Staff (and various other former Trump staff members) calling him a fascist and unfit for office should be a big deal.
But GOP voters expect Blue to make these claims at about now. It happens every Presidential election. Ergo it won't get much news time and we shouldn't expect people to listen.
"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-democrats-who-cried-wolf/493928/
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
It is unclear to me that we should want the temperature lowered. Their core desire is to destabilize the region. They've made this very clear.
That's not on the table, then "lowering the temperature" is rewarding and enabling what should be punished.
"
(and were never offered one when they had the temerity to throw out the government we chose for them).
This is laughably wrong. It never occurred to Carter that throwing out their dictator meant we couldn't deal with them. From his point of view them having a democratic revolution was a good thing. He expected that we'd have good relations.
RE: Saudis v Iranians
Most of the governments in the Middle East are Arab and Sunni. Iran is Persian and Shia. The goal of promoting Shia power/dictatorships is a problem in terms of regional stability.
That has nothing to do with their relationship with us, except that our goal of regional stability puts us at odds.
that’re more opinions and alt-history speculation than actual fact
Pot, meet Kettle.
By W's speech they had a 20+ history of being a regional bad actor and showcasing they viewed their core values and long term goals were totally opposed to ours.
Since that speech they've continued on that path to the point where the Arab countries are willing to make peace with Israel.
Claiming that W's speech moved the needle requires a lot of heavy lifting that you haven't come close to doing.
"
From the point of view of serious Islamists (and Putin), we're the aggressive ones who are attacking them.
Our culture is very aggressive, seductive, and assimulistic. We spend many billions creating movies advertising it.
Our core ideas that people (woman and religious minorities) should have rights and the gov should serve the people are extreme problems for empires and/or despot(s).
From their point of view, we're just another empire and all these movies are propaganda designed to undermine their way of life. Ditto the idea of government reform, free elections, and so on.
Iran views itself as surrounded by enemies and it's doing what it must to survive.
"
Any deal we make with them is going to fall apart because of who they are and what they are trying to do. That's a long term problem and pointing to a short term deal isn't going to change that.
It's true that they were well behaved when we had an army in Iraq (and could maybe overturn their government) and W could have made a deal with them. But that deal would have only lasted as long as our wrecking crew was right there.
Since our army isn't there anymore, whatever deal we could have made would have fallen apart by now.
"
The Saudi's are heinous but mostly interested in preserving the status quo. The Iranians want to flip over the apple cart.
The "nuclear deal" that we would make with the Iranians ignores both that they've constantly broken their previous nuclear deal(s) and lied about it. If that weren't bad enough, it would also do nothing about their support of terrorism and efforts to promote revolutions and/or failed states.
So we'd allow them to rebuild their economy and turn a blind eye to them destabilizing all the other countries in the ME.
Until they lose the desire to turn every state in the ME into Lebanon, our core interests are going to be opposed which makes deals a problem.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
link?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.