House Balstroko

The one state solution is a terrible proposition altogether. The two state solution is essential for Israel’s survival. The big hurdle is that it’s hard to agree on borders.

On paper, that’s the best solution. The problem then becomes how to draw the borders. The general idea of respecting the 1967 borders seems to be the best solution, except for the fact that Israel has already built settlements in Area C of the West Bank. How do we proceed from here? Do the 2 parties agree to a land swap where Israel gets to keep Area C in favour of relinquishing territory that it currently holds?

I’m not American, so I have no say in the matter. I’m not even in disagreement with what you are saying. The unfortunate reality is that the current political landscape in the US demands an immediate response. So yes, it boils down to a popularity contest. When a non-trivial segment of the US population believes that Sanders is a full blown commie, it becomes clear that something major needs to change before better candidates can be fielded.

@Zorral gave an excellent response already, but I’ll take a different approach. Sure, there are likely to be more qualified individuals, but politics seldom empowers the brightest in a society. Michelle has a ton of star power, which goes far in elections. She’s a candidate that would be able to rally a sizeable portion of the US population yo her cause. At a time when the Republican Party is actively embracing extremist ideology, she would be a vital force in standing up to them.

Palestinians will have to come to terms with the reality that Israel exists, otherwise they will remain stateless. The only way a Palestinian state fully materialises is after Israel is secure.

I’d be surprised if Iran were to try something so overtly. I think they are happy with keeping it a proxy war as their leadership is already under intense scrutiny back at home. If the US were to get directly involved, you might be looking at an Operation Praying Mantis 2.

Hopefully that turd Trump will never get a chance to hold office again. It’s a real shame that Republicans are doubling down on being as repugnant as possible. Someone like DeSantis would probably end up being even worse than Trump.

Yes, it’s clear that the relationship has somewhat changed over the decades. Kosovo will always be a sticking point for Serbs.

As long as Serbia isn’t in the EU, successive governments are likely to take that approach. Vučic just being the latest example of that. I also suspect that amongst elderly Serbs, there is still a lot of affinity towards Russia, which is viewed as a brotherly nation. Perhaps that’s changing now, as more people are seeing Russia as being unreliable (refusal to support Armenia).

Then that also creates a plethora of other problems. What happens to Somaliland or Northern Cyprus? For that matter, you could throw in Taiwan as well which has only limited recognition, as most nations recognize the PRC as the legitimate government. On a side note, Western Sahara has just over 500 000 people spread out over an area that is over 10 times bigger than Israel.

I explicitly stated on multiple occasions that the settlements in the West Bank are illegal and need to eventually be dismantled. I was merely pointing out the fact that Israel is an independent country that has the right to exist. Those who actively protest in favour of Palestinians, while failing to condemn those who use hateful rhetoric against Israel need to be called out as well. Palestinians will not get a state until Israel is fully secure. That’s the reality of the situation. There’s a ton of outrage against Israel’s campaign in Gaza and the settlements in the West Bank. I’m not sure why you would think that this is some kind of grand declaration.

This is the point that needs to be hammered across. Palestinians have a right to a state, but only in so far as it encompasses Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians have no right to try and claim places like Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat.

What did Canada and Norway do?

The first step towards building a Palestinian state is with the recognition that Israel is an independent nation. Yes, Israel should vacate the settlements in the West Bank as part of building a lasting peace. Your insistence on a one state solution for Jews, Christians and Muslims is at odds with the reality of the situation. When a non trivial number of Arabs outright deny events like the Holocaust, including those in positions of power like Assad, the problems become all too obvious. I don’t doubt that you have good intentions in your desire to see everyone come together, it just isn’t beneficial to anyone.

Apologies if the wording made it seem like I was trying to equate the two. Of course, Biden is much better than Trump in every imaginable aspect. I meant in terms of how the general populace perceives things. Many wrongly believe in the things Republicans say about Biden. My biggest concern is that this election will play out like Trump vs Hilary in 2016.

One thing that crossed my mind, although it’s probably ridiculous: what if Dems and Republicans were to agree to have neither Biden nor Trump in the election. That way a fresh candidate could show up on both sides. Both Trump and Biden come with their share of baggage and it would once again devolve into an election of “who is less repulsive” as opposed to which candidate has a better platform.

I think many of the people in western countries protesting against the situation in Gaza are harming the Palestinian cause with idiotic slogans like “By the River to the Sea” ( unfortunately, those do still occasionally pop up, though are thankfully less prevalent than they used to be). It is imperative that groups advocating for the liberation of Palestine, do so by first recognising the reality that Israel is a sovereign nation. A Palestinian state can only consist of the West Bank and Gaza, nothing more.

That’s definitely a positive, though I’m not sure I’d credit it to anything Hamas has done, but rather the increasing brutality of the settlers.

What has Hamas actually done to further the Palestinian cause? If they truly cared about Palestinians, they would have used their resources to develop the Gaza Strip. Instead, their leadership is loaded with money, while the majority of Palestinians are struggling daily. As @Tywin et al. pointed out, their only goal is to destroy Israel. They don’t care about Palestinians at all. The Palestinian cause is just, as long as recognition of Israel is also guaranteed. Hamas and the like are garbage organisations.

Trump and his Brazilian boyfriend Bolsonaro need to be behind bars for good.

I agree with @Tywin et al. that Hamas is nothing more than a terrorist organisation with little motive beyond the destruction of Israel. Nothing they’ve ever done could be considered as being constructive to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. They actively pursue policies that ensure the residents of Gaza live in perpetual misery, by being deprived of basic necessities. None of that justifies the actions Israel has undertaken in Gaza that ultimately lead to tremendous suffering and directly help organisations like Hamas maintain a foothold. Without proper recognition of the need to establish a Palestinian state, the cycle will continue for the foreseeable future.

The main advantage that the US has, is that it’s an incredibly valuable ally to have. That’s the reason many countries put up with it, even when it does its share of bs. Most other countries don’t have that luxury. The other big advantage that the US has, is that its main adversaries are far less reliable than it is.

Honestly, I think that’s a very valid concern. So far NATO has been revitalised, at least in terms of exterior appearances. Among the far right (not just the MAGA types) there’s a belief that this isn’t America’s fight, and Europe should be left to their own devices. As you pointed out above, it’s worth pondering the implications of not standing up for your allies. What happens if a country in the Baltics invokes Article 5, but is ultimately met with indifference by its fellow NATO partners? At the end of the day, I think everyone realises that there’s a big difference between a country like the US, UK or Germany getting attacked versus someone like Estonia or Latvia. I hope I’m wrong though and NATO truly sticks together as an equal partnership.

Are you explicitly referring to the current situation between Venezuela and Guyana here? If that’s the case, then ideally it would be great if Brazil took a hard stance, since any invasion by Venezuela would have to go through the Brazilian state of Roraima.

This is probably a good time to address what @Conflicting Thoughtand @Rippounet mentioned in the previous thread. It’s a huge mistake to view Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the response to it, by framing it in the context of the Iraq war. Russian imperialism goes back centuries and predates the establishment of the United States as a country. It would be more accurate to say that the Global South (a misguided term in this context imo), simply wishes to maintain strong relations with Russia for the simple fact that it offers somewhat of an alternative to the Western system. Take Lula of Brazil for example. He’s a firm supporter of BRICS and likely wishes to capitalise on that front. China and India are economically more important than Russia, yet the latter is viewed as essential to the organisation. Taking a strong stance against Russia would likely undermine BRICS as a whole. Those are my 2 cents.