I just did, and you've ignored it.
I would have to disagree with you on that. You have vaguely argued that Israel is like South Africa, but you haven't laid out a precise definition.
Keep in mind, it's completely possible to discuss and criticize Israel without using the word "apartheid." People use the word "apartheid" because that word has strong emotional and negative connotations. It's like "genocide," "rape," "trafficking," etc.
We could simply argue over (1) what Israel is or isn't doing; and (2) whether what it's doing is right or wrong. But instead, people want to bring a semantic issue into the debate. They want to argue over whether or not what Israel is doing could be called "apartheid."
If you want to have a semantic debate, it's completely reasonable to ask you to define your terms. That's what semantics is about.
I am not going to lay out three paragraphs of legal text for you to nitpick to death.
I don't think "nitpick" is the right word here. Because I don't think it's possible to define "apartheid" in such a way that (1) it's broad enough to apply to Israel; (2) it's narrow enough so that it doesn't apply to numerous other countries (which are not regularly and publicly accused of "apartheid"); and (3) it's not an obvious gerrymander definition set up to apply only to Israel.
Or to put it another way, leaving the word "apartheid" vague gives critics of Israel the opportunity to engage in a motte and bailey strategy.
You can call it "nitpicking" to point it out, but I think it's a very valid objection. Especially since it's completely possible to discuss, debate, and criticize Israel without using the word "apartheid." The door has been opened.
I don't consider 'har har! technically this also applies to East Berlin!' to be good-faith engagement or a good argument
If you need to caricature what I have said in order to make your point, then I would suggest to you that your point probably isn't all that strong.
Anyway, since you are apparently bowing out of the discussion, I will leave with this question: Why use the word "apartheid" at all to criticize Israel? Why not simply argue that it's wrong for Israel to exercise control over J & S without giving many of the Arab occupants a voice in Israeli government? And if it's so important to apply a specific word to Israel, why is it so unreasonable to ask for a precise definition of that word?
omw_68
9d ago
I feel like I must exist in a very different bubble to you cause I rarely hear about water vapor feedback
Well global warming is a culture war issue. So yeah, it sounds like you might be in the bubble created by mainstream sources which tend to follow the progressive/leftist/woke party line.
Greenhouse gases exist. It's easy to verify that certain gases absorb wavelengths of light that would normally reflect off the earth and go back into space. Absorbing this light causes the gas to heat up. We've been pumping greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, into the atmosphere. Therefore the planet will heat up.
This is what I would call "motte" global warming. It's very defensible, but the problem (for climate activists) is that if you do the math, it results only in modest global warming, not the catastrophic scenarios described by climate activists. For that, you need "bailey" global warming: The idea that warming due to CO2 will be strongly amplified by means of water vapor feedback. Which gets you the scary scenarios, but isn't supported by the evidence.
Unsurprisingly, climate activists would like to blur the distinction between motte global warming and bailey global warming -- so that they can pivot back and forth depending on what's most convenient.
omw_68
9d ago
I'm not sure is it's talked about in current climate circles, but it's significant in modeling. Models (at least in the 2000s when I learned about this) had a multiplicative factor on climate forcing that was based on a positive reinforcement mechanism from water vapor - in other words, the calculated increase in temperature from CO2 was doubled or tripled because of the assumption of positive reinforcement. Notably, the models did not really model cloud albedo effects, which make water vapor arguably a negative feedback mechanism that stabilizes temperature instead.
Of course, the actual problem was that the models kept all this secret
I basically agree with all of this, except that I don't think the role of water vapor feedback in climate models was secret in the sense that it was completely unavailable and not discussed. Rather, I think it was a secret in the sense that it was not publicized or emphasized. And why would it be? It's embarrassing to admit that your catastrophic predictions are based on what is essentially a fudge factor.
But either way, there are a lot of people out there who think they know a lot about the global warming debate -- even on a scientific level -- who have literally never heard of water vapor feedback or the role it plays in climate models.
PS I agree that it's actually more likely that water vapor is a negative feedback mechanism than a positive feedback mechanism. Not because I am some kind of expert on climate science, but rather due to common sense about complicated systems. If a complicated system has been relatively stable for a while, the default assumption should be that it's dominated by negative feedback. By analogy, you are far more likely to find a large (loose) boulder on the floor of a valley than on the peak of a mountain.
No it isn't? This is legit the first time I've ever heard about water vapor feedback being a major issue.
Well, are you saying that you have studied the global warming debate carefully for a good deal of time? (It seems like you are saying something like "If water vapor feedback were an important issue, I surely would have heard about it by now given that I've been following the global warming debate carefully for some time now.")
Did you just not see the two I mentioned in the post you're replying to?
Maybe I missed it? Here's what I saw:
Anyways I don't really have any specific examples of popular skeptics explicitly denying greenhouse gases exist but pretty much all of them commonly make arguments that don't make any sense unless greenhouse gases don't exist.
I'm just asking for a couple names of prominent skeptics and links to their arguments which "don't make any sense unless greenhouse gases don't exist."
Because I am genuinely skeptical of your claim that "Most people who dispute global warming typically deny the existence of greenhouse gases."
If you already provided the names and links elsewhere in the thread, would you mind just quoting yourself? TIA.
Sure they could but "global warming is happening and caused by humans, just a lot slower than believed" is not a track I ever see anyone take.
Again, are you saying that you have studied the global warming debate carefully for a good deal of time? It seems like that's what you are saying.
omw_68
9d ago
I'm discussing it here only because, if asked straight, apartheid seems like a totally valid description to me and I considered you to be making a poor argument otherwise.
Ok, then I would ask that you lay out your precise definition of the word "apartheid."
omw_68
9d ago
Well no, because none of those countries are exercising sovereignty over conquered territory whose people are kept in a state of permanent statelessness for purely demographic reasons. Try again
It seems to me you are shifting the goalposts here. For example, your previous post said nothing about "conquered territory."
At this point, I would ask you to lay your specific definition of "apartheid state" so that the goalposts are firmly in place. I think that it's going to be hard for you to define "apartheid state" in such a way that (1) it's broad enough to apply to Israel; (2) it's not broad enough to apply to states such as Lebanon (which has long denied citizenship to Palestinian Arabs who have lived their for generations); and (3) it's not an obvious gerrymander definition created in order to apply only to Israel.
omw_68
10d ago
I'll just say that I have never once had a woman not show up for a date after agreeing to a time and a place.
If you are saying you've never been out and out stood up, my experience tracks with yours. But are you including late cancellations?
omw_68
10d ago
@omw_68 is wrong in that the water vapor feedback mechanism is very well modeled and understood
I am very skeptical of this, and here's my challenge: Please identify a few instances where prominent climate models of water vapor feedback have made predictions which are (1) actual predictions (i.e. not backcasts or predictions after the fact); (2) interesting; and (3) accurate. TIA.
I've never heard either this objection or anything about water vapor feedback being anything more than a minor contributor.
Respectfully, water vapor feedback is the (or at least A) central issue in the global warming controversy.
Anyways I don't really have any specific examples of popular skeptics explicitly denying greenhouse gases exist but pretty much all of them commonly make arguments that don't make any sense unless greenhouse gases don't exist
Ok, then please give me examples of a few arguments made by a few prominent global warming skeptics which don't make any sense unless greenhouse gases don't exist.
Since they readily admit to two then the only other way they can argue anything else is causing global warming is by denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I strongly disagree. They could admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but take the position that the effects of CO2 have been exaggerated.
omw_68
10d ago
Most people who dispute global warming typically deny the existence of greenhouse gases.
I believe that global warming is essentially a hoax. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but the main thing I dispute is that warming due to mankind's emissions will be amplified by a positive feedback mechanism.
So in a sense, I don't dispute global warming. What I mean is that (1) there is little or no dispute that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising due to mankind's activities; (2) since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one can reasonably expect measurable warming due to mankind's activities. The issue is that according to climate activists, alarmists, warmistas -- whatever you want to call them -- this baseline warming will be amplified to dangerous levels by water vapor feedback. However this claim of amplification, in my opinion, does not stand up to scrutiny. Which means we are left with modest warming as opposed to dangerous warming.
Anyway, as I said, I can't speak for anyone but myself but I suspect that you are attacking a bit of a strawman here. Are you able to identify a few prominent global warming skeptics who "deny the existence of greenhouse gases"?
omw_68
11d ago
in fact the opposite (we have a provision to invade The Hague)
It's actually worse than that, since
(1) The so-called Hague invasion act prohibits all governments in the US from cooperating with the ICC;
(2) the UN Treaty (which has force of federal law) gives immunity to foreign diplomats traveling to the US on UN business;
(3) Absent the UN treaty, Netanyahu would presumably be entering the US with general diplomatic immunity; and
(4) AFAIK The Rome Statute itself recognizes (2) and (3).
So yeah, there's no legal basis whatsoever. That being said, smoke-blowing is a long tradition among politicians. And Mamdani is just playing to his base who don't know (or don't care about) the law and are driven by what could be politely referred to as "strong anti-Israel sentiment."
And if there isn’t one, then what credible argument could Mamdani make re the arrest?
None whatsoever. As far as I know, Netanyahu could come to NYC and personally spit in Mamdani's face with full diplomatic immunity. In fact, I hope Netanyahu decides to rub it in a bit; sign up for a tour of Gracie Mansion; and plant an Israeli flag in the entry way.
omw_68
11d ago
OMW was making a (pretty interesting) objection to a definition.
Thanks, although my central objection on this issue is to people throwing around loaded buzzwords such as "apartheid," "genocide," and so on.
If someone wants to argue that it's wrong for Israel to occupy J & S without allowing the Palestinian Arabs there to have citizenship and voting rights, it's possible to do so without using the word "apartheid." Probably it would be a much more productive discussion.
But once a person has used a word like "apartheid," they've opened a door. It's on them to define the word "apartheid." And if it seems they have stretched the definition (or if they have a special, broader definition to use for Israel), then it undermines their position, perhaps even fatally.
No, you don't understand. It's good and OK when trump does it, but it's bad and norms violating when mamdani does it, because that's why.
for real though, the level of motivated reasoning on this one is interesting to see; how some plainly stated threats from the executive need to be carefully considered because of the context, and a virtue signaling hedge from a mayor is a violation that needs to be punished with the full force of the state.
I'm not sure I see your point here, but I certainly concede that there are partisan hacks on both sides. By "partisan hack," I mean someone who is outraged by X when it's done by the enemy tribe and/or outgroup but defends a very similar (or far worse) X' when it's done by someone from his own tribe/ingroup/allied groups.
omw_68
11d ago
TIL. Now I am wondering if any hostile foreign head of state (e.g. an Ayatollah or North Korean) was ever willing to bet his freedom on the US sticking to the letter of the law.
I'm not sure if you would call him a head of state, but Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (former president of Iran) famously visited New York multiple times in the late 2000s. I think doing so is a pretty safe bet given that the US still, more or less, has rule of law. And the law is pretty clear that such persons are immune.
So as long as Bibi only came to NY to visit the UN headquarters and not spend his holidays there, he would likely be fine.
I would imagine that regardless of any UN activity, Bibi (or any other foreign head of state) would not travel to the US (or any other foreign country) without being allowed to enter with diplomatic status.
omw_68
12d ago
My reading of 18 USC 878 in connection with 18 USC 1201 is that it refers to illegal kidnappings only. The key operative word in 1201 is "unlawful".
Arrests by police are almost never so blatantly unlawful that we prosecute the police for kidnapping.
I agree, although I suspect part of that is that a different statute would be used -- the one forbidding deprivation of rights under color of law.
More generally, threatening to have someone arrested is not considered threatening a crime.
I think it would be difficult to prosecute, but I can think of situations where it would be seen as criminal wrongdoing. And I can't think of any categorical reason why threatening to have someone arrested could never be considered threatening a crime.
I think that the arrest of foreign officials wanted by entities outside the US is obviously a federal matter, and absent specific legislation from Congress entirely up to the executive.
I'm not so sure about that. I suspect that Netanyahu's visit would come under the UN Headquarters Agreement. As far as I know, the Headquarters Agreement has the force of a federal statute and provides as follows:
The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations
+++
But if Trump did an 180 tomorrow and told Netanyahu that he is not welcome in the US and would be shipped to the Hague in he appeared on US soil, that would be entirely within his power.
As a legal matter, I think the Israelis could start a proceeding in Manhattan Federal Court and have Trump enjoined from impeding or interfering in any way with Netanyahu's visit to the UN.
omw_68
12d ago
I'm not VIM but what exactly do you mean by that? Because Norway etc has non-citizens in its territory?
-
Palestinian Arabs living in Lebanon (even for generations) don't get citizenship. They are considered "refugees," they are not allowed to vote, own land, or work in various professions.
-
The situation is similar in Syria and Egypt.
-
Norway exercises sovereignty over the Russian town of Barentsburg. As far as I know, Russians living there don't get Norwegian citizenship even if they are born there.
but Israel really does look like a pretty damn clear example of an apartheid state to me.
If you want to make that claim, fine, but it's reasonable to ask how you are defining "apartheid." Because if you have a special, broader, definition which applies only to Israel, it undermines your point. To use your words, it suggests that you are stretching the definition of a nasty word for political goals.
ETA: As an alternative, you could simply argue that it's improper for Israel to rule over the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea & Samaria without giving them a voice in Israeli government. In response, I could point out that doing so is the best among various bad alternatives; and so on. But as soon as you start throwing the word "apartheid" around, you've opened a door. To use your words, you've stripped context.
A city mayor with no authority to conduct foreign relations proposing the arrest of an internationally protected person in violation of both US federal law and a UN treaty that the US is party to does not seem to me to be a simple "discussion of public policy". It feels like a line has been crossed quite decisively.
As much as I hate Mamdani (that's actually an understatement -- I think Mamdani is a vile contemptible human being) I would have to disagree with this. If the Trump Administration got an indictment of Mamdani and I were the assigned federal judge, I would dismiss the indictment. I'm not sure what legal doctrine I would hang my hat on, but the basic idea is that this sort of political trash-talking is protected.
omw_68
12d ago
Yes, but this is that thing you do when you strip things of all context
I think the context-stripping door was opened by those who want to use a specific, principled-sounding words such as "apartheid" or "terrorism" to tar Israel.
Once you accuse Israel of these things, it's completely reasonable to ask for definitions of those words. And to see if the word is applied universally or if there is a special definition for Israel.
omw_68
12d ago
If the people of NYC can't keep their moral principles in their pants for this higher purpose, maybe they should in fact not be allowed to host the UN,
One could argue that in practice it doesn't matter since the Supremacy Clause strips NYC of any power to do anything. Heck, it's difficult for NYC to enforce its parking laws against UN diplomats.
But yeah, as a general principle the Mayor of NYC should refrain from this kind of talk.
omw_68
12d ago
The essential element is that the West Bank and Gaza are under effectively under Israeli sovereignty yet their people have no citizenship, the textbook example of apartheid.
I think it's worth pointing out that under your definition, Lebanon is an apartheid state; Syria is an apartheid state; Egypt is an apartheid state; heck, even Norway is an apartheid state.
omw_68
12d ago
He's obviously not going to seriously try to do this. He'll go to Florence if he does, and he knows it. Equally obviously, he has lots of supporters who eat this stuff up. This is a political stunt, and he knows better than to try.
I tend to agree with this, but from a tactical point of view, it seems misguided to me. What happens when Netanyahu visits NYC and nothing happens? Seems to me that Mamdani loses face with his supporters. Because it's not a situation where Mamdani can have Netanyahu arrested; wait for the courts to order him released; and then shrug his shoulders and tell his supporters that he gave it his best shot.
I kinda hope that Netanyahu comes to New York and really rubs his visit in Mamdani's face. Apparently Gracie Mansion is open to the public for tours. I hope Netanyahu signs up for a tour and pins up an Israeli flag on the wall.
omw_68
12d ago
I think the implication is "if my lawyers say I can" is roughly the same as "in Minecraft". I'm not sure I buy it completely here, but "I'm going to murder [person] if my lawyers say I can" does seem dumb enough to express such an intent.
I would give Mamdani leeway for the exact same reason I would give Netanyahu leeway: People who serve executive functions in government need to be able to discuss, debate, and effectuate public policies without the constant threat of prosecution by their political enemies. You can always look at a controversial prime minister, president, big city mayor, etc. and twist something he's done into an arguable crime (or war crime). (Well, not always, but still.)
To be sure, I'm willing to make an exception for extremely egregious behavior, but of Netanyahu, Trump, Mamdani, etc., none of them have come anywhere near doing anything which would justify prosecution. Partisan hacks from both sides might say otherwise, but that's exactly the point. We don't want partisan hacks running around pursuing political prosecutions.
I hope Trump announces that he's asked the DOJ to investigate whether Mamdani can be prosecuted for violating 18 USC 878 and afterwards everyone shuts up.
omw_68
12d ago
Honest question - what's your number to retire today? Because for me a least, $4 million is fuck you money. Do you really need more?
I'm already semi-retired in the sense that the business I run has stopped accepting new projects, at least temporarily and possibly permanently. The other wrinkle is that I am engaged and my fiancee is from a wealthy family so she may end up being on the high-maintenance side of things. But anyway, my question is more about making the most of the big changes which seem to be on the horizon as opposed to budgeting for retirement.
I'm pretty confident that absent some doom type scenario, we'll all end up collecting UBI. My concern is that there is going to end up being some kind of permanent or semi-permanent aristocracy. Which would kind of suck, but if there's going to be an aristocracy, I think I'd rather be one of the aristocrats.
This story reminds me of the old joke about the the two old Jewish guys sitting on a park bench -- one of is shocked to notice that the other is reading White Supremacist literature and asks why. The response: "Where else can I read that Jews control the world and the Holocaust never happened?"
But seriously, it would probably be a good idea for Israel to retaliate against these Leftist-run European countries who are constantly trying to stick their noses into Israel's business and drum up hatred. That being said, the evidence that Israel behind this is rather weak.
More options
Context Copy link