BraveSirZaphod

Your average pseudoscience obsessed health hobbyist is never going to notice that particular detail though.

The funny thing about Lemmygrad people is that you could tell me that this comment was an intentional caricature and it’d seem just as likely as it being genuine.

China will not seek to “own” outer space

Let’s see China get out of other nations’ ocean space first and then we can talk about outer space.

I’m speaking solely to the facts on the ground.

Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on the matter, Israel does hold all the guns here. Rights and privileges mean as much as the paper they’re printed on. In a perfect world, Israel and Palestine would exist side by side as peaceful partners, each with fully fledged institutions and militaries and all that jazz. But unless Israel is confident that a Palestinian military won’t have its destruction as its primary goal, it will not allow that to happen, no matter how much pontificating about rights and narratives and double standards anyone does. I’m not trying to talk about who’s “right”, whatever that even means. I’m talking about the actual situation and what will actually happen, regardless of anyone’s opinions on the matter.

When a country has such a consistent history, it’s rational to believe that they will continue annexing Palestinian lands

And an Israeli would say that Palestinians have a consistent history of attempting to murder Israeli civilians and so it is rational to never allow them to build up any military power, and thus the circus goes round. My point is that no amount of moral superiority means very much if you don’t have actual power to go along with it, and Palestinians simply do not. If the goal is actually to develop a real peace rather than avenge any sins of the past, both sides will have to give up on prior grievances and decide that they care more about the lives of their children than their own pride. It’s hard to imagine the situation being much worse than it already is (though I’m sure it’ll find a way)

it’s not impossible that Jordan, Egypt, and neighboring countries would gang up on Israel.

This has literally already happened. Israel beat them all in six days.

For sure, I’m not at all trying to portray Israel as blameless here, because they are not.

I think the blockade does have some basic level of merit, at least in principle (it can’t really be doubted that Hamas does import weapons and materials with Iranian backing), but it’s critical that those kinds of controls only go as far as they’re needed and no further. However, the Israeli government has never really cared about not going to far, so Palestinians have no real reason to trust that they’re being treated in good faith, violence comes to feel like the only real option, and onwards the mess rolls along.

Along with Palestinians needing to accept that Israel is going to exist in some capacity and that it will not accept any deal that doesn’t ensure its security, Israelis need to accept that if they don’t take every step towards keeping peaceful paths available and fruitful, then people will turn to violent ones. Israel can of course easily win a conflict of violence, but it doesn’t have to be this way

Maybe if it was the 1940s this would be a bit more accurate, but at this point, we’re a couple generations removed from the original mass displacements. Most Israelis today were born there.

Like I said, the way towards progress lies with both sides finding a way to get over historical grievances of who started what and who’s to blame for this and that and instead accepting the fact that they’re both here now and need to find a way to exist with each other.

They’re saying that Arab nations have a legitimate reason to be concerned about allowing in Palestinian refugees, given that every time a nation has done it, it’s sparked civil war, and that this point has not received a satisfying response.

I’m gonna guess English isn’t their native language, but luckily, I majored in linguistics.

Within Israel, the vast majority of people don’t particularly care about any kind of manifest destiny style reclamation of the West Bank or Gaza, and if that were the only issue, I genuinely don’t think there would be a significant problem.

What essentially everyone does care about, however, is repeatedly having rockets lobbed at them. When people feel under threat, reason starts to fall away, people begin dehumanizing the “other”, and you get the massive mess we have today. The fact of the matter is that Israel will never accept any situation where its people are under threat. No matter what you think about what acts are or aren’t justified or your opinion on how various parts of the history played out, none of that changes this basic reality.

Palestine is not going to be able to militarily eradicate Israel. There is precisely zero chance that Israelis allow themselves to be subjected to a second diaspora and they’ll fight to the death to prevent this, and that’s to say nothing of external players like the United States. Again, whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a true thing.

On the flip side, Israel is perfectly capable of essentially eradicating the Palestinians, though this would subject it to massive international condemnation that would also have huge economic impacts. You’re already beginning to see whispers of this as the world increasingly sees Israel’s response in Gaza as being excessively harsh. The most they could do is a slow and steady degradation of Palestinian society while encouraging them to “voluntarily” leave, which is arguably what the strategy has essentially been under Likud with settlements and the like.

So, what’s required for a peaceful co-existence? Firstly, you need a mutual acknowledgement from both leaders (and also, a legitimate Palestinian leadership in the first place) that the other side exists and has a right to do so, ie, Palestinians giving up on the idea of eradicating Israel and Israelis giving up on the idea of fully annexing and ethnically cleaning Palestinian lands. This is not a trivial thing. The Israeli far-right, though they’re not dominant, are growing and believe they have a divine right to the West Bank, with the Arabs being seen as little more than animals in the way. The extreme Palestinian side is that all Israelis are essentially foreign invaders and should be forcibly removed or killed. Both of these positions must be completely taken off the table.

Secondly, Israel will not engage unless it is confident that its security will not be threatened, which will in practice mean that Palestinian authorities must be de-militarized beyond what’s necessary for basic local law enforcement. Again, this might seem unfair, and hell, it probably is. But the fact of the matter remains that Israel is the side holding the guns here, so you either play by their rules and try to find some positive outcome, or you flip the table and enjoy the complete loss, but with some moral satisfaction. Similarly, there would probably need to be some kind of border controls for imports that Israeli authorities can inspect for covert weapons shipments, since it’s a known thing that Iran does regularly try to bring weapons into Gaza. Ideally, this would be some kind of bi-national force with Palestinian cooperation.

If you reach these points, then you still have other very big questions to deal with, like precise borders, land swaps, the question of Jerusalem, how to connect Gaza and the West Bank, any right of return for displaced Palestinians both recently and during the Nakba, and plenty of other things I’m sure I’m forgetting about. But ultimately, if you have a Palestinian and Israeli leadership that are actually interested in peace and accept the existence of the other, and both agree to cooperate on matters of security and prioritizing that peace above and past grievances, no matter how legitimate, that gives you a real foundation you can build from.

I wouldn’t get my hopes up though.

Just because it hasn’t been said yet, this already exists in bodybuilding. The professional league, the IFBB, which hosts the Mr. Olympia competition, does not prohibit drugs and they are de facto required. Essentially every IFBB bodybuilder uses steroids, and it’s a very open secret.

Something that does need to be considered here is that not all sports necessarily benefit from steroids, at least not nearly as much as bodybuilding. More muscle isn’t necessarily always a good thing if it makes you heavier or less mobile, so there’s already some limited regulatory effect from that as well.

My point is that, in this context, “bombing a refugee camp” is not meaningfully different than bombing any other urban environment.

Which is to say, very deadly and terrible and generally a bad idea unless there are literally no other options, which I would say isn’t really the case here.

“Refugee camps” is something of a misleading term when it comes to Gaza. While there are several settlements that did begin decades ago as camps of tents, which is the image the term conjures, at this point they are essentially cities like any other. Due to some unique legal circumstances, a huge chunk of the population of Gaza are legally considered refugees by the UN, but this is a unique status that’s even inheritable by the descendents of the people who originally fled during the establishment of Israel.

This isn’t to defend bombing civilians, to be clear. It’s just that, frankly, it’s difficult to throw a dart at Gaza without hitting what is legally considered a refugee camp.

I’m not going to feel particularly bad about people with the slogan “Death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews” being killed in combat in a retaliatory military strike.

Do you have a source for any Yemeni civilians dying yet?

No civilians died in the first strikes, and I’m not aware of any sources claiming any civilian deaths in these strikes either, which is probably to be expected given that they were against a military air base.

Removed by mod

“They’re just disrupting the oil trade to help reverse climate change!”

• At least one very confused person, somewhere

For what it’s worth, I don’t really disagree.

Basically, and that in the modern era where attacks can happen very quickly and with zero warning from non-state actors (as opposed to having to march an army across fields for days), the President needs to be able to react very quickly.

Given the current state of Congress, with a shutdown looming, no real plan, and apparently now some rumblings of a plan to oust the Speaker yet again, I can kinda understand the logic.

More cynically, it isolates Congress members from any political accountability.

The numerous times that he has proceeded to not do something after the SCOTUS tells him that it’s unconstitutional.