The solution to the Israel problem is to have two reasonable parties sit down and agree to difficult concessions on both ends to attain a lasting, workable peace.
It’s hard to attempt a “two state solution” when one of the parties is a nation created by displacing the native population and the other is a state sponsored terrorist organization.
I have zero problems with specific, nuanced critiques of what choices the Biden admin has made or not made with respect to Israel. I, too, would prefer that we not send Israel any more offensive weapons. I would prefer that we come out more strongly against Israel when it demonstrably oversteps. But I generally don't hear leftists saying those sorts of things in measured, reasonable tones. Instead, it all gets boiled down to a flat moral right/wrong statement like "The administration is supporting genocide." It gets boiled down to protestors yelling at Kamala rallies that she's a murderer and war criminal. I don't think that's entirely fair, and more importantly I think framing critiques in those sorts of terms is what makes leftists (especially young leftists) stay away from the polls altogether, or throw their vote away on Jill freaking Stein. It makes it easier for voters - especially young voters - to reach the simplistic conclusion that "both parties are evil" and it therefore doesn't matter which one you vote for, because Dems are just as bad as Republicans. When in reality, even if you think Dems are just as bad as Republicans on Palestine (which I think is not the case, but fine) they are most assuredly not just as bad on a whole host of other important domestic and foreign policy issues.
All fair. Good discussion.
That’s never happening.
I don’t see that ever happening tho
It happened to South Africa. It actually happened all over the world when different colonies reverted back to the natives with varying degrees of violence and varying degrees of success. Israel is really fighting against the tides of history at this point.
Your comparison is highly flawed starting with the disparity in arms, the difference in public opinion and that Gaza was not and is not a colony.
Every colonial power had a massive disparity in arms over their colonists. Public opinion changes and it's not heading in the Israelis favor. And It can certainly be debated if Gaza is a colony ,but Gaza sure seems to have some aspects of a lot of other colonies.
Relevance?
I think you're forgetting the leadership of a lot of post-colonial countries. For The citizens of plenty of those countries, it wasn't all hunky-dory once they kicked the occupiers out. It could be really good for the people that ended up on top though.
Got it. But as VP, can Harris do anything like that unilaterally? Did trump do that? No, he is Netanyayu's (sp? - sic) lapdog as much as he his Putin's. So given that, why would GP want trump instead of Harris? That is my main question. Yes, stop sending "offensive" weapons, I get that. But would trump do that? No.
I am forever amused by the leftist impulses to selectively consider the track record the United States has in the exercise of its power to promote internal change in other nations. Throw out all of Latin America, Iran, Iraq, etc, but this time it'll be fine and we'll have no negative consequences. Our track record, one must concede, is at very best a mixed bag.
