@pm_me_passion's banner p

pm_me_passion

אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 06:00:05 UTC

				

User ID: 464

pm_me_passion

אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה

0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 06:00:05 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 464

There’s also the option of not needing specifically credit history to get a loan or further credit, if you have other financial info available. For example, in Israel you can get a loan from your bank based on your salary income, which is known to your bank anyway.

I was discussing US politics with my wife, as one does, and immigration laws came up. I briefly told her about sanctuary cities, and in response she asked why anyone would support that. I had no answer.

I googled a bit and got some very bad answers, so I’m turning to the motte.

Can the motte provide some pro-sanctuary arguments, and some pro-illegal immigration arguments in general? Consider that you’re giving these answers to a none-American from an ethno-state that enforces its immigration laws, and generally frowns on immigration to it from different ethnicities.

Both of those narratives you presented are both wrong historically and non-existent in popular conception.

While it’s true that “Jewish land” pre 1948 was mostly fairly purchased, it’s a small part of what eventually became the state of Israel. Those borders were decided by war, but the initial purchases did set the starting point for the war.

Conversely, Palestinians aren’t Bedouin. They weren’t so much spread out etc., as much as they just lived in other places than they currently do. A lot of their assets were taken from them by Israel after the war, including private property. Keep in mind that there wasn’t a Palestinian state if some kind, it’s more of a personal grievance on a national scale.

Nowhere. Any such situation will only lead to civil war, again - i.e a repeat of ‘47 but with a better armed and trained Jewish population, and a less willing Arab world.

You don’t have to choose a side, actually. You’re an American, presumably, you live far away and have no way of knowing.

If I had to advocate for my side, though, I’d say this - in 2005, when Israel unilaterally left Gaza, the gazans could have simply chose to declare a new state and live their lives. They could have been a middle-eastern Singapore. Instead, they chose to eliminate all of the PA’s presence in the strip (by throwing PA officials from high-rises, if memory serves) and double-down on rocketry. I think that says a lot. (Also, numerous other atrocities and the fact that post ‘48 there was a mixed Jewish-Arab side of the armistice line, and another judenfrei side)

We’ve had enough rockets, but thanks for the offer.

If I were the czar of Gaza, I would declare an independent state which in theory includes Judea and Samaria but in practice encompasses only Gaza. I would build up the economy, utilize foreign aid for the benefit of my citizens, absolutely forbid any violence towards Israel.

In 5-10 years, when things start to improve, I would use diplomatic means and international pressure on Israel to gain control of Oslo A territories in Judea and Samaria (but not B and C), instead of Fatah. There I could build an even stronger economy, again ruthlessly putting down any violence against Israel. At this point I have a state. I negotiate with Jordan and Egypt to allow independent travel between Samaria and Gaza. I’ve already been recognized in the 80’s, so I don’t need to jump that hurdle. I will now solve the refugee crisis by bringing back every descendant of ‘48 to my new state. We are now a thriving state, leaning heavily on international aid and tourism but not blockaded.

This is the hard part, since Israel might interfere from here on out, but I will draw the optimistic scenario. I demand that Israel complies with Oslo, as I have, and gain civil control of Oslo B territories. From here I will use more diplomacy and world pressure to finalize my borders, roughly drawing on the ‘48 armistice line but NOT adhering strictly to it, since it’s mostly meaningless. I offer the settlers in area C citizenship in my country, and since I have shown no violence towards them they might actually accept. We now live in peace. I win.

Edit: I assume your last paragraph is a joke.

Of course not, don’t be silly.

Anecdotally, in the very-red very-religious state I’m staying at, I haven’t seen any grinches but plenty of nativity scenes, some Santas and Reindeer. I do stay away from the blue core, though, so maybe there it’s more frequent.

Absolutely. I used Venezuela as an example too, when saying who might want to illegally immigrate to the US even if they couldn't work legally. For more context, my family and I are currently staying in the US with a legal working visa, and we had to go through some hoops to get it (we'll be leaving soon, unfortunately). I can put myself in the shoes of the illegal immigrant very easily.

If I understand correctly, then, the pro-illegal immigration Americans are de-facto pro-open borders, or at least pro-open borders from the third world. I can understand the political hardship of changing federal laws to increase legal immigration, so I assume that un-enforcement is a way to achieve that end while side-stepping national politics. Does the pro-illegal immigration camp also campaign for increased legal immigration from the third world?

Alright, I can see where they come from then. Would you say that in practice, the people who support sanctuary laws etc. are also in support of open borders? I think that’s what we’re having issues with, squaring how someone can support un-enforcement of immigration laws but still not being in favour of letting anyone in. It seems like the practice is opposed to the theory.

It does not discredit the US one bit if it stops sending aid to Yemen. Note how the crisis in Yemen is caused by their Arab brethren, not by any western entity. In truth, the way that the US currently handles the situation - on the one hand arming the Saudis, and on the other hand feeding the Houthis - is causing you to look as two-faced as possible. Same goes for the Israeli-Arab situation. You're not winning any friends by playing both sides and prolonging wars, no matter what humanitarian justifications you may think up.

You also say that "Israel [...] has never been worth all the animosity it has earned the United States from the Arab world." To counter a "never" claim, one example is enough, thus I present you with "have doughnut". Western powers are well-known for being fickle and untrustworthy, only concerned with what your allies can supply you in the short term, but you don't have to play up to stereotype by totally forgetting the past. Maybe a more mild statement is called for.

Let's be honest, most mainstream news sources are unreliable when talking about their opposition. So Fox is unreliable regarding the left, and everything else is unreliable regarding the right, or whoever it is they dislike.

I mean, remember "Joe Rogan takes horse paste"? I do. I guess CNN is out.

How about The Guardian reporting about a terror attack in Tel Aviv, and subsequent shooting of the terrorist, as "Israeli forces kill Palestinian after Tel Aviv shooting leaves two dead"? I remember that (actually, I remembered a different time that happened, but got a more recent one).

BBC reporting on the stabbing of an Israeli border patrol agent, and subsequent shooting of her assailants, as "Three Palestinians killed after deadly stabbing in Jerusalem"? Well, I didn't remember that, I just found it when looking for the Guardian piece.

Is there any news source that you couldn't compile a 20-point gish-gallop on and paint it as unreliable? I doubt it.

It’s not “miracle happens” so much as “violence happens”. If I’m a leader in Gaza then I get to do that. If I can’t do that then what’s the point if the exercise? Just to prove that Gaza’s culture is irredeemable?

Your last paragraph is ridiculous on so many levels. Maybe least of which is that you think it’s possible to send the Temple Mount and Cave of the Patriarch anywhere. I agree it’s ridiculous to expect the Arabs to change, by the way, which is why they must go.

He doesn’t even have a Hebrew wikipedia page. Never heard of him, and I do know the Likud liberals (libertarians…?).

Also, you shouldn’t take most Likudniks seriously. They’ve mostly risen through the ranks through ass kissing and being a non-threat to Bibi - so they’re all pretty incompetent. That’s a big part of Israel’s decline in so many areas over the last decade.

The concessions Hamas asks for are “go back to Europe or the sea”. They will only agree to a tactical truce, this is their raison d’être. They don’t want to create an independent state, and they could have done this for about two decades now if they did. There’s nothing to recognize in Gaza. Ending the blockade will mean more weapons in the hands of genocidal maniacs. So now what?

I was surprised to find out he’s not Jewish, with that last name. Turns out he’s from a christian Arab family. In that case, his people were already cleansed from Gaza. The people still in Gaza are his people’s killers.

None of those are Israelis. Are you replacing “Israeli” with “Jewish” in your mind?

Also, again Syrian refugees are the result of sectarian violence, not US action. Israel is not the US, in any case, even if it were Jewish influence somehow forcing the US to act.

Israel will bomb Syria if needed, especially now with the civil war chaos, but those don’t send refugees to Europe.

Do you concede that Israel did not blockade Syria? Can you explain what made you think it did?

As women mature, their demands from a man monotonically increase. She keeps "getting ahead" in a man's scale of life, and must always find a man that exceeds her own achievements. As she gets older, the pool of potential husbands decreases. Therefore, she must settle down early - if she went to college, then that's a great place to find a husband. If not, then quickly after or even during high school.

The man's role in all of this is to put a ring on it, then provide. The woman's role is to accept the best offer, quickly. Society's role in all of that is to enable the man to provide, and to not delude women about their available time.

Either way, Israel's new government will be worth watching for how far a genuine right-wing government can be allowed to travel before it gets blocked by the establishment.

You're projecting American culture and idioms on a completely different culture. The entire meaning of "right wing" in Israel is different (e.g. it's not 'conservative' in the American sense), and the assumption that the establishment is somehow opposed to the right is another Americanism. The establishment in Israel is populated by lots of ex-military guys, and being Zionist (= Patriotic) is practically a prerequisite for any movement or person to succeed outside the margins of society.

The presence of any meaningful leftist movements in Israel is rather marginal - represented politically by Meretz (so small they're not in the current Knesset even) and Labour (also small). While there's a lot of what an American might term "woke signaling" in the Tel-Aviv area, especielly with regards to LGB stuff, it doesn't extend well to actual minority populations. The Arab/Jewish divide is very deep, not like the Black/White divide in the states, so whenever woke rhetoric is projected on them it falls very much flat. It's just a different landscape, really.

This doesn’t seem to correspond to the claimed body-count nor the explosion videos, which seemed massive. So Hamas was lying about the deaths, that makes sense, but the videos seemed real enough - so what gives? I’m honestly confused now.

Oh, good answer, on both counts. Is the second part something that people actually say out loud, though? Or is it something that they'll think, but then say something else?

What do you mean "why"? If you want to stop the Houthis from blocking trade routes, surely their disappearance would achieve that goal. Dead people cannot initiate hostilities.

You're welcome to try to "befriend the arab states", though you'll have to choose which ones. Currently you're on the Saudi-Sunni axis, which is one of the reasons the Iranian don't like you. Rest assured that your support for Israel is a minor issue at best.

Clearly, two Americans saying bad words to one another is an escalation of a conflict an ocean away, with tens of thousands of dead and wounded. Just imagine what might happen next - maybe one of them will use the n-word!

Normally a warning is given, making it so much less likely to actually be an Israeli attack.