There's not much to learn by talking with people that already agree with you
Sur la nécessité de supprimer l'i.s.f. car sinon les riches vont partir(, T.Piketty, Capital et idéologie, 2019)
![](https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/66f5ef3a-97e3-45b0-aaf6-105613364ad9.webp?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
![](https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/66f5ef3a-97e3-45b0-aaf6-105613364ad9.webp?format=webp)
Je sais pas, j'ai juste souvent entendu parler de ce problème de compétitivité, avec notamment cet argument de la fuite des capitaux français, le voir balayé aussi simplement m'a donné envie de le partager. Après, ça ne parle pas de l'investissement étranger, et davantage du manque de lutte contre les fraudes fiscales, sans aborder la possibilité d'un abandon de la nationalité française pour ne plus être taxé, ou du transfert de la localisation de ces propriétés, ce qui dans les deux cas peut engendrer des complications pour continuer de vendre aux consommateurs français.es. Je laisse ce post car c'est vrai que l'on entend parfois avec défaitisme que l'on ne peut pas contraindre les plus riches à l'impôt, sinon ils partiront, prenez la peine d'un commentaire si vous me voyez dans l'erreur lorsque je nie cette difficulté technique.
Il doit être 'encore plus difficile'/'quasi-impossible' pour des associations nouvellement créées d'obtenir cet agrément, pratique pour lutter contre l'anti-corruption.
Et les gens ici n'ont pas réalisé que ces menaces/problèmes durent depuis plusieurs années, même si c'est de pire en pire, le gouvernement pourra faire disparaître Anticor sans aucune conséquence et nous oublierons rapidement.
I don't understand people like you.
For me, it's impossibly naive to believe that our disinformation( doesn't exist, or) will be censored as much as the disinformation of our opponents, yet that's apparently the new mainstream opinion.
And x.com is the only social media to have implemented Community Notes.
Hi,
I was thinking about what you said.
In a word, you were saying that if Israel's enemies take every necessary step to ensure Israel's safety in a permanent manner, then a two-states solution(, including giving back the "illegal" settlements,) could be envisioned, that's a unilateral loss enabled by the law of the strongest. An inversed unilateral loss, in favor of the pro-palestinians, would see them taking back the holy lands. And a balanced exchange would have those who take(, western countries,) give something back(, of equal value,) in exchange.
At least expressed like that the first unilateral loss doesn't seem more moral than the second one, but it is true that this loss can be more or less important(, e.g., disparition of Palestine, or a two-state solution, or only a jewish territory in a small part of the current israeli territory). Yet the second choice could(should?) also be seen as the most moral of the three, when it takes the year 1900 as a baseline for saying that Israel's destruction is a neutral gain/loss for both sides(, instead of a unilateral gain/loss for one of them if we take the year 1960 as a baseline).
I'm in favor of making a trade by giving something worthwhile in exchange of the holy lands, but as you pointed out this is unrealistic, so let the strongest prevail i guess.
"I do agree that palestinians could get back the new settlements of the last decades and end any future palestinian persecution if they&'their allies' recognise Israel" is what i wanted to add, not sure that we would have followed the path of least resistance if the roles were reversed, but as you said giving them something of equal value in exchange is out of question
It's just an addition, please don't feel any obligation to answer, and thanks for the chat
Après deux (courts) débats sur le r.i.c. en commission parlementaire, voici une troisième pétition pour y répondre, et insister sur un troisième débat.
Mesdames, Messieurs les députés, Le 11 octobre 2023, la commission des lois a examiné, puis classé la pétition n°1559 pour un RIC Constituant. Cette pétition était une proposition amendée suite aux remarques soulevées lors de l’examen d'une précédente pétition. Nous souhaitons rester dans cet espri...
![Signez la pétition pour le RÉFÉRENDUM D’INITIATIVE CITOYENNE CONSTITUANT, amendée après 2e passage en commission - Signez la pétition pour le RÉFÉRENDUM D’INITIATIVE CITOYENNE CONSTITUANT, amendée après 2e passage en commission - Plateforme des pétitions de l’Assemblée nationale](https://jlai.lu/pictrs/image/91b2266e-9aaa-4b5b-a98a-68c5b15deae0.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=256)
J'avais suivi le premier passage, mais ai laissé traîner le visionnage de la vidéo traitant le deuxième passage(, bien moins superficiel apparemment, et un peu moins bêtement hostile, peut-être y avait-il cette fois-ci au moins un député pour argumenter en sa faveur, sinon le système est ainsi fait qu'il n'y aura personne pour 'défendre la pétition'/'répondre aux objections').
Voici le texte cette fois-ci :
Mesdames, Messieurs les députés,
Le 11 octobre 2023, la commission des lois a examiné, puis classé la pétition n°1559 pour un RIC Constituant. Cette pétition était une proposition amendée suite aux remarques soulevées lors de l’examen d'une précédente pétition. Nous souhaitons rester dans cet esprit de dialogue fructueux. C’est pourquoi nous soumettons aujourd’hui cette nouvelle version qui prend en compte les préoccupations exposées par la commission en octobre. Si certaines modalités de cette proposition vous semblent imparfaites, nous vous invitons à soutenir sa poursuite vers un examen à l’Assemblée, afin que ces modalités puissent être débattues et amendées dans l’hémicycle.
Toutefois, compte tenu des approximations et contrevérités entendues durant les précédents traitements de nos propositions, afin d’éviter tout nouveau malentendu sur nos modalités et nos intentions, nous souhaiterions que nos experts soient invités à la réunion qui traitera de la présente proposition, comme le prévoit l’article 148 du règlement de l’Assemblée. Aussi, nous souhaitons que le détail des votes soit publié, conformément à la décision du Conseil constitutionnel n° 2009-581 DC du 25 juin 2009.
– Exposé des motifs –
L'article 6 de la déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen consacre le droit des citoyens de concourir “personnellement” à la formation de la loi. L’article 2 de la Constitution consacre le principe de gouvernement “par le peuple”, et l’article 3 consacre l’exercice de la souveraineté nationale, qui appartient au peuple notamment “par la voie du référendum”. Nous, très large majorité des citoyens selon tous les sondages, souhaitons l’instauration du RIC constituant, une procédure qui a fait ses preuves de par le monde, afin que ces proclamations ne soient plus théoriques, mais mises en pratique et incarnées dans un nouveau droit politique, celui d’un peuple réellement souverain.
Prises en compte des remarques de la commission
Mme la Rapporteure a pensé que notre proposition écartait le Parlement de la procédure. Il n’en est rien et ce n’est pas notre volonté. Dans notre article 89, le Parlement n’est pas exclu, il reste l’acteur principal. Notre proposition ne vise qu’à élargir l’initiative aux citoyens, à aucun moment il ne s’agit d’en priver le Parlement. De plus, les parlementaires ne sont pas exclus de l’initiative citoyenne, ils sont des citoyens à part entière. Ils peuvent donc, comme les parlementaires le font en Suisse, déposer une initiative citoyenne, récolter des signatures et soumettre leur proposition à référendum. Notre proposition ne prive pas le Parlement de l’initiative, au contraire, elle donne aux parlementaires, même minoritaires, l’occasion d’en appeler à l’arbitrage démocratique des citoyens.
Cette fois, sur les conseils de la commission, nous introduisons la possibilité d’une contre-proposition parlementaire, comme c’est le cas en Suisse.
Mme la Rapporteure, ainsi que d’autres députés, y compris parmi ceux s’étant prononcés en faveur de l’examen à l’Assemblée, ont estimé qu’il était nécessaire de pouvoir réviser la Constitution sans référendum pour les modifications techniques, complexes, ou juridiquement nécessaires. Il va de soi qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une volonté de réformer la Constitution contre la volonté des citoyens. Nous avons donc réintroduit la procédure du Congrès pour les projets correspondant à ces critères.
Le contrôle par le Conseil constitutionnel a également fait naître des craintes quant à l’insuffisance du délai prévu et l’éventualité d’une saturation du Conseil par des propositions peu sérieuses. Nous comprenons ces arguments et avons donc revu la procédure de soumission des initiatives au Conseil, afin d’écarter ces risques.
Pour finir, le seuil de signatures a semblé trop faible à la Mme la Rapporteure, qui a justifié cela par l’incohérence d’un seuil plus élevé pour une loi ordinaire (art.11) que pour l’adoption d’une loi constitutionnelle. C’est juste, mais comme l’a très justement souligné le Conseil constitutionnel dans sa décision du 18 juin 2020 : “la procédure reste dissuasive [...] le nombre de soutiens à atteindre est très élevé (environ 4,7 millions)”. Ceci est confirmé par M. Macron, qui a proposé dès 2019 dans son projet “pour un renouveau de la vie démocratique” de réduire drastiquement ce seuil à 1 million. Nous proposons donc qu’il en soit de même pour l’initiative des révisions. En effet, dans toute l’histoire de France, seules 7 pétitions ont atteint un tel seuil, il semble donc que ce soit un seuil plus que raisonnable pour éviter toute utilisation intempestive de la procédure.
Merci pour votre attention et votre examen de ces nouvelles modalités.
**– Modifications – ** Les 5 critiques procédurales émises par la commission :
- Exclusion du Parlement
- Impossibilité de révisions techniques sans référendum
- Risque de révisions inconstitutionnelles à cause du délai de contrôle
- Risque d’un trop grand nombre de propositions soumises au Conseil constitutionnel
- Seuil de signatures trop faible
Voici comment la nouvelle proposition répond à ces critiques :
- Inclusion du Parlement Comme suggéré par la commission Ajout d’une possibilité de contre-proposition parlementaire (.6)
- Possibilité de révisions sans référendum comme suggéré par la commission Réintroduction de l’approbation de révisions par le Congrès (.10)
- Impossibilité de révisions inconstitutionnelles. Allongement du délai de contrôle du Conseil constitutionnel (.4)
- Diminution du nombre de propositions soumises au Conseil constitutionnel Ajout d’un seuil de signatures avant soumission (.4)
- Augmentation du seuil de signatures Comme suggéré par la commission Augmentation du seuil à 1 million (.5)
– PROPOSITION – L’article 89 de la Constitution est ainsi révisé :
.1 L’initiative de la révision de la Constitution appartient concurremment au Président de la République sur proposition du Premier ministre, aux membres du Parlement et aux citoyens.
.2 Le projet ou la proposition de révision, à l’exception des propositions d’initiative citoyenne, doit être examiné dans les conditions de délai fixées au troisième alinéa de l’article 42 et voté par les deux assemblées en termes identiques.
.3 Lorsque la proposition de révision est d’initiative citoyenne, elle doit mentionner l’identité du ou des porteurs de l’initiative, le titre, le but de la proposition et l’amendement de la Constitution entièrement rédigé.
.4 La proposition de révision d’initiative citoyenne est déposée auprès du Conseil constitutionnel après le recueil de 50 000 signatures de citoyens sur papier libre. Les signatures doivent être accompagnées des noms d’usage, prénoms, dates de naissance et adresses des signataires. Le Conseil constitutionnel dispose d’un délai de 2 mois à compter du dépôt pour contrôler la validité des signatures et statuer sur sa conformité aux alinéas 11 à 13 du présent article. À l’issue de ce délai, la proposition est considérée comme valide. La proposition valide est publiée officiellement et est accompagnée d’un support papier et numérique où les citoyens peuvent apporter leur soutien. En cas de rejet, le Conseil constitutionnel produit une décision publique motivée.
.5 La proposition de révision d’initiative citoyenne doit recueillir au total un million de signatures d’électeurs dans un délai de 18 mois à compter de sa publication officielle.
.6 Les signatures de soutien à la proposition de révision d’initiative citoyenne, en format papier ou numérique, doivent être accompagnées des noms d’usage, prénoms, dates de naissance et adresses des signataires. La validité des signatures est contrôlée par le Conseil constitutionnel dans un délai qui ne peut dépasser une durée de 4 mois. Les parlementaires disposent de 24 mois, à compter de la validation de l’initiative, pour déposer une contre-proposition par la procédure de l’alinéa 2 ci-dessus. Le ou les initiateurs peuvent alors décider de retirer leur initiative.
.7 Une fois validée ou à expiration du délai prévu à l’alinéa précédent, le Président de la République soumet la proposition de révision au référendum dans un délai compris entre 3 et 12 mois. Aucun référendum ne peut être tenu pendant les 90 jours qui suivent la tenue d’un référendum.
.8 Les référendums sont précédés d’une campagne garantissant la diffusion de débats contradictoires et de toutes les informations nécessaires à un choix éclairé.
.9 La révision est définitive après avoir été approuvée par référendum. Si une initiative de révision fait l’objet d’une contre-proposition, les deux sont soumises séparément à référendum le même jour. Si les deux obtiennent l’approbation de la majorité des votants, seul le projet ou la proposition qui obtient le plus de votes favorables est approuvé.
.10 Toutefois, le projet de révision peut ne pas être présenté au référendum lorsque le Président de la République décide de le soumettre au Parlement convoqué en Congrès et qu’il ne fait pas l’objet d’une demande de référendum ; dans ce cas, le projet de révision n'est approuvé que s'il réunit la majorité des trois cinquièmes des suffrages exprimés. Le bureau du Congrès est celui de l'Assemblée nationale. Après la publication de la décision de convocation du Congrès, les citoyens disposent de 200 jours pour déposer auprès du Conseil constitutionnel 500 000 signatures d’électeurs demandant un référendum. Le contrôle des signatures est identique à celui de l’alinéa 6 ci-dessus. Si le seuil est atteint, le projet de révision est soumis à référendum.
.11 Aucune procédure de révision ne peut être engagée ou poursuivie lorsqu’il est porté atteinte à l’intégrité du territoire.
.12 La forme républicaine du Gouvernement ne peut faire l’objet d’une révision.
.13 Aucune révision ne peut avoir pour objectif de restreindre les droits civils et politiques garantis par la Constitution.
.14 Des modalités d’application complémentaires peuvent être fixées par une loi organique.
You're right, they're at most a threat in the future, but aren't strong enough currently to be deemed a serious threat, a fight for survival implies an enemy strong enough to kill you, and if we're only talking about palestinians they're not there( yet).
Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. It's not really comparable because of this.
It's not comparable because the disparition of Israel would be an existential threat to the u.s. ?
Realpolitik just means acknowledging the political realities of their situation. Political realism.
Without discussing what should be, only how to do it(, and usually without considering the morality of the path taken, only its assumed effectiveness, there're reasons to believe that Machiavel wrote The Prince as a criticism and not a support b.t.w.).
If i remember correctly J.Mearsheimer liked realism for its predictive power.
Guerilla warfare can sometimes be effective, however I do not believe this approach will lead to victory against Israel
Only because Israel's territory isn't populated by palestinians, which is why i mentionned Ukraine, whose annexed/liberated territories aren't anti-russians like in eastern Galicia, perhaps because they believe that Russia is large enough to become a.n 'future continent'/'original culture' by itself, and want to believe in this idea, and/or perhaps for other reasons. But w/e.
For Israel this isn't a fight to colonize, it's a fight to exist. There are many Arab nations that could take in Palestinians, not so for Jews.
They can go in "the first&free world" if that's your argument.
And they're colonizing more territories because it's a fight to exist ?
As this comment pointed out : palestinians are at most a threat in the future, but aren't strong enough currently to be deemed a serious threat, a fight for survival implies an enemy strong enough to kill you, and as you previously recognised, if we're only talking about palestinians, then they're not there( yet).
Israelis were relatively safe all these decades(, compared to their neighbours), and i could only imagine that Palestine's destruction would enhance their security if arabs/muslims accept it and refuse to stand for palestinians, and if israelis stop there, because they would still have to invade/coup such countries as Iran or political movements such as Hezbollah, and would continue as long as they're not accepted.
If you presented Israel's survival as 'a moral argument'/'what should be', which would probably not be "realist" to do so, then i could return the same argument for palestinians, and ask you why you don't support the intifada on these same moral grounds, but you more likely said that to explain their motivation and give an estimation of their strength/resolve.
I believe you are overestimating both international support for Palestine and the military capabilities of most African and South American nations
As you saw afterwards, i wasn't talking of a military fight, but of a.n economic&diplomatic one(, even if coups generally imply a military role, sometimes bloodless but very often not).
most of their Arabic neighbors recognize that making an ally of the United States and the EU is far more strategically valuable than backing this group that wants endless war and seeking unreasonable demands.
Unreasonable because they won't ever win ? Well, who knows ?
I don't see them supporting Israel and abandoning palestinians(, only Morocco's gains would be significant, yet they're still seemingly hesitant), i'll agree that they still have a margin of retaliation/pressure towards the west though, perhaps are they forced to wait for a more opportune time to act or, as you said, have accepted such unconditional loss, not sure that we would have if the roles were reversed. As previously mentioned, they wouldn't win anything by complying, and i don't see clearly the extent of what they'd lose by resisting(, some could include their honor or other immaterial examples).
Hamas launched this attack because Saudi Arabia was about to recognize Israel, after all, and SA is dependent upon the US for security. If they alienate the US they have Iran to contend with.
In my opinion Saudi Arabia has more reasons to be afraid of the u.s.a.&co than of Iran, since, except for the Gulf monarchies, every single one of their neighbours 'has been'/'is being' destroyed : the color revolutions, Mohamed Morsi, Lybia, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and even Lebanon is in an economic crisis(, and kinda Türkiye as well), you just have to open a map and list every country. If we're going a bit further then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, almost all countries destroyed by the west, and i haven't counted kurd separatists or the islamic state, it's not a stretch to think that they desire stability, but what a f*cking world, we don't understand that, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Chad, Niger, central asian republics, Georgia, ..., these countries seems far away, if the realist choice is just to always follow the strongest regardless of what's right/fair, then i don't want to be a realist.
Russia has its own issues right now and cannot afford another front
Is there a single non-western country more active than them around the world currently ?
Given their behaviors in Chechnya, they do not seem to be sympathetic to Muslims.
As if they didn't lose enough historical territory in 1991, V.Putin's party isn't called United Russia for nothing, of course we(sterners) supported the separatists terrorists(, but hated them when these "orks" fought on the side of Russia&'south-eastern ukrainians' recently).
The first hostage released by Hamas was an israeli who also had a russian nationality, and there were other gestures if this kind of things matter, the timing of the l.g.b.t. ban may perhaps also be linked in some way, i.d.k.(, they also have their own muslim republics in the russian federation, Chechnya is apparently very homophobic, and it's not only inside their borders or in the Middle-East, but in Africa as well), just to say that i wouldn't count on their islamophobia.
If such creatures exist, they haven't weighed in
The (uncaused )Cause is the only being which isn't a creature(, and the only to be the Being), i don't think a direct visible interference would be that desirable, everything would just be solved and there wouldn't be anything else to do, i prefer to feel free, but in any case there's always determinism and God as the Cause for this kind of interrogation.
It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?
Not sure that despite our imperfection we wouldn't be a part of the All/One, and there's always the law of karma among other laws of our reality, parts of the All do care, and if we look/seek the Greatest we/ants do care.
I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.
You didn't wrote that to imply that we should only get there through secular means(, by fighting other paths), but i find interesting that we fight communism and islamism : apart from these two, and royalism, do you know of a single large ideology that survived the colonization and isn't the western one of a constitutional capitalist secular republic ?
I wrote about these communities with their own rules because i feel that we're unfortunately looking for unity at the expense of diversity, instead of looking for a permanent peace in harmony, ensuring both our unity and our diversity, we're not looking towards this direction, and there's even this selfish nationalism saying that it's not our role to help each other, i can't like it, we should aim to live together.
Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation's ability to change that situation.
We're arriving at the end of the discussion then, because we can argue about their chances but in the end none of us (can pretend to )know.s the future. Here's why i think that the law of the strongest doesn't necessarily work against them :
Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.
Since you mentioned "realpolitik", and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant "terrorism" by more numerous inhabitants.
In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.
Yet when i'm thinking of such examples it's about locals united in their perception of foreign armies as the enemy, and couldn't be applied for Israel(, not occupied by a majority of locals/palestinians).
Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.
If it wasn't enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. That'd mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that they're still closer to us.
(What interest me more is whether they should win(, and on what terms), the law of the strongest shouldn't matter, but even through that lens, )Here's a (naive )picture of how it could happen :
- they'll throw a lot of propaganda to make their citizens f*cking hate to death israelis, painting them as monsters by recycling their war crimes and implying that they're doing so because they're evils, not because they want to survive, antisemitism could also help in that ;
- they'll progressively cut all economic ties with the west as long as we dont accept their request, and have prepared beforehand as much as they can to withstand sanctions/'economic war' ;
- they'll strengthen their link and, this is important, pledge publicly and repeatedly that they'll invade each other if(when) someone is elected(, or placed after a coup,) that intend to break this oath ;
- they'll regularly make military threats to Israel, but without acting upon it unless they know how to get rid of the bomb, so mostly to mark a point before diplomatic meetings and eventually take a habit of strengthening popular support like that, rejoicing in the fear that they think it may bring israelis, and of the coming day when they'll conquer back their lands, as well as enact laws against israelis or even perhaps westerners ;
- ...
If 'fairness is excluded'/'might makes right'/'the only factor is strength', then they're not weak.
Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner(, ideally if we were perfect/'never doing anything that another being would consider bad for h.er.im' then we wouldn't rely on states, laws, borders, ..., for protection, just freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth, lands wouldn't belong to anyone and we wouldn't possess anything else, only living to do good to each other, but since we're not perfect it's useless to point that out(, Israel would be destroyed if they acted like that, and Palestine wouldn't be recovered, and more generally societies would collapse, Christ is/shows the Way but if the other don't also believe that he's one with you it obviously quickly becomes useless, sry for the unproductive rambling).
Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take "back" these (holy )lands, important for all the "children" of Abraham, perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). If they ever agree to lose one of their "hearts", then fairness would require to give one of our "hearts" in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&'total separation' of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you're starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction. Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn't accepted Israel in the first place. Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security, but to get back to the "root" of our disagreement, you've seen that i'm not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i can't blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our "hearts" by force ? It's not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that it's not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you're right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldn't be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If you'd like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldn't have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would 'be satisfying'/'made it acceptable'.
Now that i think about it, i can't resolve myself to say that they don't have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still don't agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ﷺ were prophets, the disagreements aren't worth such profound schism, we follow Abraham, and more importantly (virtues and )God, christianity and judaism could be considered as sects of islam, or all of them sects of abrahamism(, that's diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldn't owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so i'll stay with my conclusion : the problem isn't that Israel's existence isn't accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didn't made its existence acceptable, in other words it's up to us to make this right.
You'll probably say that we won't make their loss acceptable, then i don't see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if it's the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
Hey, i'm visiting some family currently and they're watching another one of these news channels owned by billionaires, they're regularly saying that crimes are done by immigrants and totally ignoring that the poors 100% french hated the police as well 100 years ago, and did more crimes than the wealthy, it's so obvious that it isn't linked to being black or arab, that their solution of being even more cruel towards them(, social benefits, authority, police, ...,) is f*cking ignorant. They're talking all day about islam and insecurity(, which isn't growing in %, it only gives such impressions because the laws changed, surveys should be trusted instead), yet such experts would be absolutely unable to explain why these behaviours were exactly the same in the past with "true" french poors(, e.g., they called cops "les cognes", etc.). When i'm pointing the obvious(, going back millenias in the past), they'll just shrug it off and continue to call it a civilizational problem, history goes in circles.
Is it more or less the same in the u.s.a. ? I'd be interested to know your vision of their propaganda.
Fair enough, i'll just point out that with such enhanced surveillance it'd be even more difficult than currently(, and ideally impossible,) for people loyal(, or hostile,) to Trump to cheat the election. Thanks for the chat
But it's also preventing others from lemmy.world to see posts or comments from lemmygrad/hexbear/..(, as well as preventing them to post or comment), they're not leaving the choice to lemmy.world users(, nor even asking them).
Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed was a result of this.
The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?
Polling indicates Palestinians want intifada and a one-state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, and they outnumber Israelis.
And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ? Why won't they put an end to the settlements then, and why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?
Anger will not change their situation, it has led to it being this way.
The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
But yeah, you're probably right, i don't really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they're at war as well, and seized an occasion.
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn't be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there.
If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?
While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did suffered for it with coups and terrorist organizations within their borders.
Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you're trying to put pressure and the more you're exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.
(And realpolitik don't look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what's fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
I have much to learn by talking with a pro-israeli, my sincere thanks for engaging.
[The claim that "if you kill their leaders they'll just elect new ones"] has yet to be established
As i said with Benjamin Netanyahu : killing him won't destroy Israel, just as killing their leaders wouldn't destroy Hamas.
We have to solve the root of the problem, because "Hamas"(palestinians) have the moral high ground here, « If israelis are unwilling to pacify themselves, the destruction of Israel seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Palestine safe. », wouldn't you agree ?
« Palestine was annexed because israelis declared war on Palestine and won, funny how the Anti-Palestine crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the israelis as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors. »
« If israelis are reasonable, yes [killing them would be enough to deter them from killing more palestinians and occupying (more&more of )their land]. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of settlers and a one-state solution where they deny rights to palestinians certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation. »
I can't understand how you could paint the israelis as the victims here : they were the ones who stole the lands(, and are continuing to steal more of it), they're killed way less than they're killing, both before and after Oct.7, with less material destructions, yet i can't wish for them to permanently excuse themselves for existing, even if they should. There's a few solutions possible other than a two-state solution, i can only regret that public debates don't turn around this research of solutions instead of simply supporting one side, the anger of palestinians is legitimate, but what's the plan. Israel is asking for a lot and can't offer much in exchange, if i was arab i could consider that such weird locations could have a weird civilization different from the rest there, after all the muslims have expanded so much that they could accept to 'paint in another color'/~lose one of their heart, but not without consequences for israelis/westerners, it should result at the very least in a huge boost for the ummah, something deemed worthwhile by all of them, which won't happen since we(sterners) won't give any of our "hearts".
A crazy idea would be to plan for all countries to ally together in order to colonize and terraform Mars(, with commitments to certain realizations), from 2070 to 2177 for instance(, or longer if necessary), and our collective effort will be entirely done in order to give the whole planet Mars to countries claiming to be islamic. It's a good situation in the solar system, and despite many problems and uncertainties could be deemed a huge gain without being more than a financial loss for other countries. Other possibilities exist even if this one may seem/be far-fetched.
(i didn't know that, it'd require more researchs than i did on the claims of each side, they'd perhaps say that the coverage was insufficient).
In my opinion we don't have anything to lose by strengthening our electoral system, and every accusation is an occasion to improve it, unless you think that it is already failproof, i've seen long lists of arguments at the end of 2020, but John Oliver also made three videos on the topic of fraud prior to that, and our side didn't hesitate to have doubts twice on the results for Bernie Sanders, whether it happened or not, i do think that cheating is a serious possibility and that such claims should be solved by better measures to please the future candidates/incumbents, instead of only relying on censorship(, youtube, facebook, twitter, ...). To sum up, he did commit to a peaceful transition, and we don't have much to lose by implementing an even stronger surveillance of the procedure for the next elections.
You're evidently right, but many articles for the 2021 elections(, 1, 2, 3, ..., including the one cited), said that it has been 15 years since the EU sent observers.
In any case i would like to emphasised that this debate isn't useful : even if westerners systematically sent observers they would still claim that the results are illegitimate because of the overall process(, which deserve some explanations/debates because our own system is far from perfect, and we're blending the consequences&causes of the sanctions, etc.). I should have deleted this post like i intended at first once i realized that.
A few more minutes of research wielded these results :
- EU won't send observervation mission in Bangladesh : https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/eu-wont-send-observeration-mission-3424326
- The United States, European Union, France and Japan say they have no plans to send electoral observers or to provide assistance to Cambodia : https://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/election-international-observers-03312023140751.html
- The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will not send observers to Russia’s upcoming elections for the first time in nearly three decades : https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-elections-osce-observers/31393760.html(, "The insistence of the Russian authorities on limiting the number of observers we could send without any clear pandemic-related restrictions has unfortunately made today’s step unavoidable. The OSCE had been invited to observe the Russian elections, but the number of allowed observers was later restricted to 60 due to what Russian authorities cited as the deteriorating pandemic situation in the country. (...) The OSCE had assessed earlier this year that it needed 80 long-term and 420 short-term observers.")
- The European Union has scrapped plans to send observers to a parliamentary election in Ethiopia next month : https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/eu-scraps-plan-observe-ethiopia-election-2021-05-04(, criticism of their official reasons here https://euobserver.com/opinion/152293 : « The International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute sent missions to observe, and the African Union sent 120 observers. Yet the EU decided against sending a delegation, despite promises earlier in the year to do so. (...) The African Union's observer team has praised the election, as have ambassadors from Sweden and Denmark. », that's exactly an example of what i'm talking about, with false excuses/pretexts.
I didn't write that we refused to send international observers to Russia, but that « i've read such suspicions about Russia and Iran, we even showed videos of a ballon in front of the c.c.t.v. for Russia », despite « the reasoning that when you're so overwhelmingly popular there's no need to miscount the votes in your favor ».
It appears that we did send international observers(, until 2021), but my point is that it wasn't necessary, yet we're still showing suspicions(, e.g. the balloon in front of a c.c.t.v. to take an example).
I'd just like to end by saying once again that this whole debate is pointless because it doesn't change anything in the end, whether we systematically refused to send observers, or always sent them while accusing the whole "democratic" process instead(, it's apparently in-between, but much more the latter than the former, contrary to what i initially thought).
I should have deleted this post from the start like i first intended once i realised, in the selftext, that « In the end sanctions would stay in place so it wouldn't be useful in any way, and doesn't matter, i should probably delete this post but i'm leaving it in the off-chance that some find an interest in it. »
Sorry if you felt that i wasted your time.
When you look at the amount of suffering other countries in the region, all anti-zionists, had/have to go through, i won't blame some of them to conclude that it'd be better for everyone to just draw a line on the past and accept Israel.
They may think that they're entitled to something in exchange, but that they're not united/strong enough to impose their will or 'reject their alliance with'/'put more&more pressure on' the west. So be it then if it's a sacrifice worth making.
random tweets
He's the director of the World Health Organization, and many articles are talking about many U.N. schools, the most recent one has been linked to this video, and when you look at one of these schools, here, it's not hard to imagine it being bombed in regard to the surrounding desolation. It's more symbolic of their unwillingness to create safe zones than anything else, they even bombed refugee camps, and are used to kill innocent civilians in order to settle on their lands anyway.
You can't depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don't reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they'll just elect new ones, i thought that this was obvious to everyone else. Even if Hitler was killed the third reich would have continued existing, the same goes for Israel if you kill Netanyahu, or the u.s.s.r. if you killed Stalin, there are a few modifications but the state doesn't suddenly disappear, sry but i shouldn't have to explain such obvious things and i'm afraid that a lot of other people think like you even if it's so obviously delusional.
Game theory ? They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them, committing atrocities almost every day(, or at least week,) in a complete silence from "the free world". What's the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? When does it stop ? I wouldn't think that someone really say that the more Israel kills and the safer they'll be, how could it make any sense, they'll only be hated even more, do you think that they're acting guided by their emotions when they're expressing themselves so calmly ? Are palestinians allowed to "deter" israelis from acting like they do by killing even more of them ? Westerners had even more attacks on their territories once they wanted to "avenge" the first attacks by killing so much more people, in truth it's obvious to almost everyone that vengeance wasn't our goal, but our objectives were geopolitical, and were attained by burning everything held by the islamists, and torturing&killing the prisoners. I hope that they're not thinking that their only way to prevent such attacks is to mass murder thousands of innocents, especially considering that their walls were effective for decades.
Netanyahu is already at the end of his political career, your explanation is awful if true, but i've already talked about the blinded desire for revenge without any aim, i can't think that they're only guided by emotions when acting so rationally, they're head of states not teenagers in a video game, if they're doing something like that it's in order to gain something that couldn't be obtained otherwise.
I don't agree with you because i can't see the point : is it really a blind/stupid desire of revenge ? Just killing innocents everywhere without any other goal than that ?
I can't find this source again(, when they said that they lacked time to send observers), it wasn't talked much at the time, but i'm positive it happened, here's an example of refusal for 2020 though : https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-eu-says-it-wont-send-observers-to-monitor-venezuelan-election-due-to/
Apparently, they've agreed to send observers in 2021 : https://www.postguam.com/the_globe/world/maduro-electoral-observers-from-eu-delegation-of-spies/article_8df8438a-50d1-11ec-b8be-13b5cf9ed4e5.html
The last time was in 2015, once again at the request of the venezuelan government : https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/26227_en
Some people say that the government won't ask again in 2024 : https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-will-not-allow-eu-election-observers-2024-vote-lawmaker-2023-07-13/
But i've clearly overestimated the impact : Venezuela will still be sanctioned and the public opinion will still consider that they're miscounting the votes. Allowing international observers or not doesn't change anything in the end, we'll only be satisfied once the socialist revolution is out, and will continue to accept unsatisfying electoral conditions with our allies(, e.g., in Africa).
You'll need to read pro-venezuelans medias to see the other point of view.
As for Russia, you'll mostly find articles saying that his disapproval rate is at an all-time high, but this kind of article, or statista, are confirming that he's one of the most popular president in the world. I could easily find more sources for this, so the reasoning is that when you're so overwhelmingly popular there's no need to miscount the votes in your favor :
Are you unsatisfied with the sources or my conclusions ?
If the most recent death toll wasn't enough, here's something else showing that they don't really care about keeping an appearance, as well as another U.N. school, i don't know what to say or do, everyone knows that they won't destroy "Hamas" :
If their goal was only to send a message, then there's no point to be that extreme, the only reason left that i can see is that they want to keep the Gaza Strip, it's always a bet but they considered that they'll be allowed to(, in which case their security would indeed be increased by getting rid of all palestinians).
Their neighbours would have to be quite desperate to think that embracing Israel and the west is still their best option, but if they do it'd probably be for economic reasons, and/or perhaps fears of retaliations, i.d.k., we'll see how it'll evolve in the future, but i can't believe that they would kill all of these people and destroy everything without a real goal, sending a pointless message isn't one, nor is the unrealistic aim of destroying "Hamas", i find it hard to imagine them simply going back to their side as if they accomplished something by pointlessly mass murdering thousands of childrens&humans on the other side of the wall, awful that this senseless option of a useless massacre is the most desirable.
Israel orders Gazans to flee, bombs where it sends them
Israel ordered people out of swathes of the main southern city in the Gaza Strip on Monday (December 4) as it pressed its ground campaign deep into the south, sending desperate residents fleeing even as it dropped bombs on areas where it told them to go. Lucy Fielder has more.
![Israel orders Gazans to flee, bombs where it sends them | Reuters Video](https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/b6a93eea-39e9-487d-9a2f-ab5220ed6be9.webp?format=webp&thumbnail=256)
Previous title apparently : !
I suppose that :
In their point of view, the economical success is thanks to them.
Their conservative take on what they perceive as excessive "progressivism" is saving America from making a mistake.
Their opposition to censorship and the right to bear guns.
They want to fight crimes, and in their view criminals wouldn't exist because they would be too afraid of being caught.
They believe that taxation is a theft, or at least excessive, and that they're protecting the u.s.a. from an oppressive government. That without them people would have an easy life so wouldn't work hard(, true to an extent, poor workers exist though, and childs of wealthy families have more interesting jobs).
They love freedom.
I.d.k., i don't know them enough to defend them, including for the (far-)right of my own country, it's a bit of a shame really, once you disagree with them their speeches aren't very informative, that's why i kinda regret not to have them to speak with.
If he's re-elected then perhaps that international observers with an absence of electronic voting could be approved by both sides and prevent such doubts from being formulated again. Observers may be considered humiliating for a great power but could perhaps be generalised to every representative republic, if only in order to prevent such excuses ?
Would anyone here know why we refuse to send international observers to some countries ?
I've seen it for Venezuela and Syria, but i'm sure i could find this for quite a lot of other countries. We're usually saying that it would legitimize these elections, and are asking instead that the opponents boycott them. We can continue to criticize the biases surrounding the votes instead of the votes themselves if that's the problem. Some leaders may believe that the processus of elections is biased because unjust external pressures are putting a strain on the country and strengthening the opposition ; but, despite that, some of them are still asking for international observers, which could be an occasion to seize, instead of refusing to send them yet accusing them of cheating. So i wonder if i'm missing something by thinking that we don't want to legitimate the whole process by counting the votes.
For them it seems like it would be the same if they're already asking, but for us it could open our societies to accusations of double standards since it could be argued that our own elections aren't perfect. In the end sanctions would stay in place so it wouldn't be useful in any way, and doesn't matter, i should probably delete this post but i'm leaving it in the off-chance that some find an interest in it.
If you had the initial thought that international observers won't prevent cheating : they would count in double the votes, with the venezuelans of their area, and have everything under their eyes from the beginning of the vote to the end of the official count, so i don't see how cheating would be possible. For now, our version is that they're miscounting the votes, yet we're refusing to send such observers.