Open mike 11/08/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 11th, 2024 - 62 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

62 comments on “Open mike 11/08/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Grey Area 1
    11 August 2024 at 8:08 am

    Visa fee hikes will discourage migration to New Zealand – immigration advisors

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/chinese/524669/visa-fee-hikes-will-discourage-migration-to-new-zealand-immigration-advisors

    Good.

    And that's not self interest from the advisors is it?

    [link fixed by removing tags]

  2. Obtrectator 2
    11 August 2024 at 9:11 am

    Why is this almost universally being regarded as a crisis? It's what the bloody planet needs! And I speak as one of those "oldies" who are supposedly going to need support (and who is currently supporting another).

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/11/global-birthrates-dropping

    • weka 2.1
      11 August 2024 at 11:06 am

      I've been wondering this too. As far as I can tell there are two issues,

      • some socieites becoming top heavy with elderly and not having enough younger people to look after them and/or pay for their retirement/healthcare
      • the global economy, blah blah, no-one ever explains this, it's meant to be self evident.

      Serious implications for women coming from the 'have more babies because of economics' people. This is why we have to talk about biological sex and women's rights.

      I'd love to see an analysis of the issue from degrowth people. I might ask around.I would expect there are other solutions to the elder care problem (assuming it is one)

      • Belladonna 2.1.1
        11 August 2024 at 1:05 pm

        Not an expert in this area, by any means, but my understanding of the issues is:

        • If the % of the population consuming superannuation and older-age health care (two of the largest costs on the NZ tax take), gets too far out of sync with the % of the population contributing to the tax take – those costs become unaffordable. Fewer working-age, taxpaying people supporting more retired non-taxpaying people.
        • The second one is based on a consumer-driven economy. Older people, by and large, consume less. They're past the age of borrowing to finance homes, cars, etc. Past the age of wanting to invest in more high-risk/high return products (they want a nice guaranteed income). Past the age of consuming (buying the latest iphone, etc) Past the age of contributing to the economy, and into the age of taking from it (see point one above). Yes, this is a generalization. But those consumerist behaviours are significant drivers of the economy.

        The question is, if we move into a de-growth economy – how do we pay for the current standard of living (pensions, health-care for the elderly)? How do we retain the infrastructure that we currently have (all that solar panels and wind farm infrastructure is entirely dependent on world-wide supply chains, not to mention the high-level computer chips, manufactured almost entirely in Taiwan)? If de-growth is going to look and feel like a medieval village (with equivalent social structures and health-care standards) it's pretty hard to sell it to people as a desirable pathway forwards.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          11 August 2024 at 2:01 pm

          good point point about the importance of consumerism in keeping the economy going. The consumerist society is in the process of taking everyone down 🤷‍♀️ None of what you describe will survive climate collapse. Plus, the whole consumer driven thing looks like a ponzi scheme, at some point it just ceases to work.

          We are a very wealthy country. The reason it looks like we can't afford stuff is because of the economic system we choose. eg one obvious way of paying for things is a wealth tax. But beyond that we have to change our economic system to live within our means. The same mentality that has us in resource overshoot is the same one that thinks that perpetual growth is the only way.

          No need to frame it as a medieval village. We're not going to lose all our industrial tech. But it might look more like 1970s travel patterns. Or eating seasonally. How will we cope without fresh tomatoes in winter? There is a collossal amount of waste in global economic food production (food and energy waste) we could make changes there.

          I agree with you that look and feel matter, which is why I keep banging on about the stories we tell and why telling stories of how things work out matters a great deal.

          Besides, the alternative appears to be forcing women to have babies, or disposing of elders. How attractive will voters find that?

          • Belladonna 2.1.1.1.1
            12 August 2024 at 11:41 am

            or disposing of elders. How attractive will voters find that?

            I've always been rather suspicious of the ACT advocacy for the end-of-life legislation.

            It costs a huge amount in health and social care for the few years of life for an elderly and/or seriously unwell person. If you can persuade them that they should die earlier, then the 'state' is better off (in financial terms, setting aside ethics). And, once it's socially accepted, then it becomes easier for the state to withdraw health/social support in the final years (after all, you have a 'choice'). So you only get to live longer, if you can afford to pay for it, yourself.

          • Belladonna 2.1.1.1.2
            12 August 2024 at 11:56 am

            eg one obvious way of paying for things is a wealth tax.

            A wealth tax is only effective in a consumer-driven society. It only re-distributes money within the country – and does nothing to address the need to import from beyond the borders. A wealth tax also won't solve the issue of fewer taxpayers (or wealthy individuals) supporting a larger group of elderly.

            Most of NZ's wealth is tied up in property – and the vast majority of it is in people's houses (most people only own one house) – so it's paper wealth, driven by an insane property market.

            If we are truly looking at a de-growth economy, then it would be good to have some examples of exactly how it would look. If we're looking at 1970s as a pattern – then landline phones (copper lines and mechanical exchanges); no computers, apart from huge organizations (no fibre optic network, or computer chips – because we can't make them locally); petrol/ethonol-driven transport – and no electronics in cars – so they can be locally repaired (although petrol would have to be imported – if no petrol, then we're back to horse and cart – EVs can't be manufactured locally, so they're right out); very limited health-care (no expensive imported cancer drugs, etc., and limited ongoing chronic health care (e.g. kidney dialysis is probably not going to happen).
            If we're going to have exports at all (to purchase any of the things that we can't make locally), then it's almost certainly going to be agricultural (we don't really have anything else that the world wants – certainly not in a de-growth environment).

      • adam 2.1.2
        11 August 2024 at 1:25 pm

        there are other solutions to the elder care problem

        Not many that are working – Japan has tried sending people back to work

        https://thediplomat.com/2023/01/surviving-old-age-is-getting-harder-in-japan/

        Another option in Japan has been crime – with some elderly people committing crimes to get the care they need in prison.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47033704

        Korea is doing the same with more elderly in work

        https://menafn.com/1108499038/South-Koreas-Economically-Active-Elderly-People-Hit-Record-High-In-2024

        https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/biz/2024/07/602_378782.html

  3. Adrian 3
    11 August 2024 at 9:21 am

    I find it intriguing that with all the brilliant efforts of Kiwi Olympians that there has been very little in the way of congratulatory talk from the government, it’s not something I would expect from Luxon anyway, as he appears to be of the disposition that praising anyone but himself may diminish his own fragile ego, much like most sociopaths.
    I suspect there may be a more sinister side to the silence. I hope it doesn’t happen but I suspect that once the Olympics are all over the next thing we will see is quite severe cuts to sport and recreation funding right up to Olympic level.

    • Anne 3.1
      11 August 2024 at 10:55 am

      Don't worry. He will be effusive and full of praise for them at tomorrow's Post Cabinet Conference then a few months down the track when everybody has forgotten the Olympics, he and Willis will start cutting the funding – with a heavy heart of course and blaming the Labour government in the process.

    • Grey Area 3.2
      11 August 2024 at 7:52 pm

      Luxon's social media team have been busy on his Facebook page about NZ Olympic results.

    • Obtrectator 3.3
      11 August 2024 at 11:40 pm

      On past form there'll be some kind of slap-up reception at Parliament for our returning heroines and heroes, with all kinds of photo/selfie ops for members of the government.

  4. Michael Cha 4
    11 August 2024 at 10:46 am

    Serious question.

    What would happen to Israel if Palestine was free?

    Would they seek to exist?

    Would we take refugees?

    Would the Palestine people let them be?

    What actually happens if Palestine is free?

    Serious answers please.

    • Barfly 4.1
      11 August 2024 at 11:31 am

      Israel is a nuclear armed state to suggest that it would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed their own state is laughable.

    • Belladonna 4.2
      11 August 2024 at 12:49 pm

      Given that the publicly stated position of Hamas is that Israel has no right to exist – then I don't think there would be any change. Palestinian extremists would continue to bombard Israel with rockets (albeit, with now a more robust support infrastructure to supply them). Iran, who also don't recognize the state of Israel, would continue to supply them with arms and support.

      Israel would continue to retaliate (with disproportionate effect)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_State_of_Israel

      • Nic the NZer 4.2.1
        11 August 2024 at 1:09 pm

        If Hamas (and others) agreed to the terms under which Palestine was established then attacks on Israel would cease. This has been the pattern previously with unsanctioned attacks punished by Hamas themselves. Its also the present pattern in the West Bank, though via collaboration with the Israeli occupation. At some time ahead we should expect the West Bank also to become as hostile to Israel as Gaza, given present encroachment of settlers continues.

        • Belladonna 4.2.1.1
          11 August 2024 at 1:15 pm

          The key word there is 'if'. I don't see any prospect of Hamas abandoning their stance against the existence of Israel. It's a key policy plank for them.

          I can't find any reported instance of them willing to even discuss the possibility of recognizing Israel at any peace talks.

          https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-war-f756cc054732eb3f7e0c49a9987560a0

          • adam 4.2.1.1.1
            11 August 2024 at 1:50 pm

            Two glaring flaws in your argument.

            One: you assume Hamas will win an election without Likud money. Actually that they could win any fair and open election.

            Two: That a two state solution is something Palestine's want – in the face of all the lies and bullshit that has come out of Israel since the Oslo Agreement.

            Freedom for Palestine is going to have to look very different from any the ideas being pushed by the west.

            • Belladonna 4.2.1.1.1.1
              12 August 2024 at 11:19 am

              Not my argument.
              I don't envisage any peaceful solution – because of the entrenched attitudes on both sides. If you do, then elucidate.

              • adam …
                12 August 2024 at 1:32 pm

                Lets try rephrasing it so you get what I said.

                I just pointed out that Hamas is not – the be all, and end all of power for Palestine's. Which over and over your arguments hinge on

                Then I said, that in any solution agreeable to Palestine's, in all probability would not be a western solution. Again, all your assumptions and arguments are based on a western model. Even your clinging to a violent outcome.

          • Nic the NZer 4.2.1.1.2
            11 August 2024 at 4:18 pm

            Hamas released an amendment to their charter in 2017 which stated they accept a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. That would be a reasonable starting point for eventual settlement. Unfortunately Israel has clearly and consistently refused to make any similar agreement making settlement impossible.

            Of course (as you will predictably want to retort) it does not matter at all if Palestinians call their neighbor Israel or the Zionest entity, as long as they can maintain the settlement Israel has its security.

            There is also the point the guarantee's required for Israel to stick to any agreement would be considerable and have vastly increased since when this was released.

            • Belladonna 4.2.1.1.2.1
              12 August 2024 at 11:19 am

              The question is not whether they will accept a Palestinian state – the question was whether they would recognize an Israeli one. So far, the answer seems to be 'no'.

              • Nic the NZer …
                12 August 2024 at 11:26 am

                No, that is not an important question at all. The only relevant question Israel can ask is if a Palestinian state would continue to attack, or would allow attacks to continue, on a potentially unmentionable Israel.

                Your talking point is just put there to obstruct progress on a settlement. Israel neither wants a settlement, nor is safety for Israeli’s important to them.

                • Belladonna …
                  12 August 2024 at 11:28 am

                  The second is predicated on the first. If they recognize the right of Israel to exist, then they have no moral justification for continued attack.
                  If they don't recognize Israel – then they will certainly continue to attack.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    12 August 2024 at 11:36 am

                    That is incorrect and your fundamental failure to understand international law. There is no such thing as a state's right to exist.

                    • Belladonna …
                      12 August 2024 at 11:59 am

                      Nothing to do with international law. If Hamas doesn't recognize Israel as a legitimate state and neighbour – then there is zero chance of any form of peace.

                      New Zealand makes decisions all the time about which states we recognize – it has nothing to do with international law.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      12 August 2024 at 12:10 pm

                      Your talking point it tired and invalid, cross it out and move onto the next one.

                    • Belladonna …
                      12 August 2024 at 12:16 pm

                      OK. Clearly you have no interest in actual debate.

                      Moving on.

          • Subliminal 4.2.1.1.3
            11 August 2024 at 8:02 pm

            As stated below, the claim that Israel has a "right to exist" is absurd.

            Additionally, the creation of the Israeli state was illegitimate. Resolution 181 that partioned Palestine recognised that this could only be done with agreement on both sides. Due to lack of this agreement, and recognition by the UN that there was no authority to force partition, resolution 181 died. At the time, Zionists only owned 7% of Palestinian land. The rest was taken by force of ethnic cleansing. Entire villages were wiped out. Refugees, contrary to international law, were denied the right to return.

            Regardless of the illegitimacy of the means by which Israel was established, it exists. This is the present reality. However, the demand by the state of Israel that the Palestinians recognize its “right” not just to exist, but to exist “as a Jewish state” is simply a demand that the Palestinians surrender their rights and accede that the Zionists’ unilateral declaration and ethnic cleansing of Palestine were legitimate

            From the same reference as below.

            • Belladonna 4.2.1.1.3.1
              12 August 2024 at 11:21 am

              Well. In that case, what is your solution to the current Israeli population? Or do we just switch from one kind of guerrilla warfare to another….

              How does your argument of international standards hold up against any other country? Azerbaijan/Armenia, for example.

              • Subliminal …
                12 August 2024 at 7:55 pm

                Israel withdraws all settlers and IDF personnel from the occupied territories and lifts the siege on Gaza so that Palestinians may excercise their fundamental right to self determination. This is all as per current international law.

                If you are unable to see and understand that there nothing acceptable in genocide, torture, rape, and the targeting of children by the brave snipers of the IDF, I would say that it is you that are the waste of time trying to talk to and that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to a solution.

          • Subliminal 4.2.1.1.4
            11 August 2024 at 8:58 pm

            Well, its difficult to see with blinkers on. Cast them aside and you shall see!

            In an enormous concession to Israel, Palestinians have long accepted the two-state solution. The elected representatives of the Palestinian people in Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had since the 70s recognized the state of Israel and accepted the two-state solution to the conf l ict. Despite this, Western media continued through the 90s to report that the PLO rejected this solution and instead wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
            T h e pattern has been repeated since Hamas was voted into power in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Although Hamas has for years accepted the reality of the state of Israel and demonstrated a willingness to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip alongside Israel, it is virtually obligatory for Western mainstream media, even today, to report that Hamas rejects the two-state solution, that it instead seeks “to destroy Israel”.
            In fact, in early 2004, shortly before he was assassinated by Israel, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said that Hamas could accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Hamas has since repeatedly reiterated its willingness to accept a two-state solution.
            In early 2005, Hamas issued a document stating its goal of seeking a Palestinian state alongside Israel and recognizing the 1967 borders.

            T h e exiled head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mish’al, wrote in the London Guardian in January 2006 that Hamas was “ready to make a just peace”. He wrote that “We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights…. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms.”
            During the campaigning for the 2006 elections, the top Hamas of f i cial in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas was ready to “accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied [in] ’67”, a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.
            T h e elected prime minister from Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, said in February 2006 that Hamas accepted “the establishment of a Palestinian state” within the “1967 borders”.
            In April 2008, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas of f i cials and afterward stated that Hamas “would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace”. It was Hamas’ “ultimate goal to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.”
            T h at same month Hamas leader Meshal said, “We have of f ered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition.”
            In 2009, Meshal said that Hamas “has accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders”.
            Hamas’ shift in policy away from total rejection of the existence of the state of Israel towards acceptance of the international consensus on a two-state solution to the conf l ict is in no small part a ref l ection of the will of the Palestinian public. A public opinion survey from April of last year, for instance, found that three out of four Palestinians were willing to accept a two state solution

            Page 19

            The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Collection of Essays by Jeremy R. Hammond

            • SPC 4.2.1.1.4.1
              11 August 2024 at 10:19 pm

              A public opinion survey from April of last year, for instance, found that three out of four Palestinians were willing to accept a two state solution

              There are no recent polls with that result.

              If a Palestinian state on 1967 borders was imposed tomorrow, most of its residents would oppose the continuance of a state of Israel alongside it.

              It is certainly interesting that Hamas ha from time to time stated its willingness to recognise a state of Israel, back in 2000 Arafat and Fatah/PLO would not do so without a right of return for the refugees (maybe the poll results of that time indicate some regret about that and otherwise an attempt of Hamas to remain relevent as a WB government in Gaza exile).

            • Belladonna 4.2.1.1.4.2
              12 August 2024 at 11:31 am

              Cast your own blinkers aside.

              Here's a selection of recent quotes from Hamas leaders (admittedly from an anti-Hamas site – but the quotes are legitimately sourced)

              https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/hamas-its-own-words

      • Psycho Milt 4.2.2
        11 August 2024 at 4:57 pm

        The problem the Israelis would face is that any Palestinian state would devote itself to building a military force to use against them. The Israelis can blockade Gaza to try and minimise the amount of weaponry going in because it's not a country, but they couldn't do that to a Palestinian state.

      • Subliminal 4.2.3
        11 August 2024 at 6:05 pm

        On the wiki page you use as reference there is a hyperlink for right to exist. If you follow that link you will find it clearly stated that there is no such thing as the right of a state to exist in international law. The very notion is absurd. Individuals have rights not abstract political entities.

        From Foreign Policy:

        Zionists taking it upon themselves to try to defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people frequently level the charge that its critics are attempting to “delegitimize” the self-described “Jewish state”. Israel, they counter, has a “right to exist”. But they are mistaken.

        This is not to single out Israel. There is no such thing as a state’s “right to exist”, period. No such right is recognized under international law. Nor could there logically be any such right. The very concept is absurd. Individuals, not abstract political entities, have rights.

        Individual rights may also be exercised collectively, but not with prejudice toward the rights of individuals. The relevant right in this context is rather the right to self-determination, which refers to the right of a people to collectively exercise their individual rights through political self-governance. The collective exercise of this right may not violate the individual exercise of it. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights, and a government has no legitimacy without the consent of the governed. It is only in this sense that the right to self-determination may be exercised collectively, by a people choosing for themselves how they are to be governed and consenting to that governance.

        The right to self-determination, unlike the absurd concept of a state’s “right to exist”, is recognized under international law. It is a right that is explicitly guaranteed, for example, under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the state of Israel is party.

        The proper framework for discussion therefore is the right to self-determination, and it is precisely to obfuscate this truth that the propaganda claim that Israel has a “right to exist” is frequently made. It is necessary for Israel’s apologists to so shift the framework for discussion because, in the framework of the right to self-determination, it is obviously Israel that rejects the rights of the Palestinians and not vice versa.

        https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/03/15/why-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/

        • SPC 4.2.3.1
          11 August 2024 at 10:35 pm

          So an argument for assisting the removal of nation state governments that do not allow the people to deny consent (contested elections) or organise their own self government? Iraqi Kurd and Shia?

          Thus the Sudentenland and Donbass?

          Or are nation state governments able to seek the support of other nations in their defence from internal rebellion? Such as the Russian military, Iranian units and Hezbollah in Syria. Or NATO and Iran backed militias against Islamic State in Iraq.

          Of course the UNSC exists for the collective security of nation states (to preserve peace), and the UN has laws preventing the taking of territory by force (since 1949, not applying to Israel, Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (WB) before that time.

          • Subliminal 4.2.3.1.1
            12 August 2024 at 9:26 am

            Like most supporters of Zionism, you refuse to acknowledge the lack of rights for political entities and rights only for individuals and collections of individuals.

            Also, Israel has no right to self defence in the occupied territories but rather an obligation to protect the civilians in those territories or leave.

            The latest ruling by the ICJ is unequivocal. Israel is operating an apartheid system and must withdraw from all territory it now illegally occupies. This includes the abolition and removal of all settler communities.

            This in itself will give the required space to implement the 2 state solution.

            And of course, no Palestinian organisation would relinquish the right of return. It is after all enshrined in international law.

            • SPC 4.2.3.1.1.1
              12 August 2024 at 7:02 pm

              The UN recognises the legal existence of the state of Israel. And thus so do its institutions.

              What if Israel said it would withdraw from Gaza, when Russia left Ukraine.

              This includes the abolition and removal of all settler communities.

              Homeless Palestinians and this …

              Is there a requirement to allow Palestinian refugees (descendants of) the right of return into the recognised territory of the state of Israel?

              And are Arab nations required to allow Jews (descendants of) to return to where they went after the state of Israel was established?

    • Psycho Milt 4.3
      11 August 2024 at 4:52 pm

      Depends what you mean by "Palestine." The Palestinians see "Palestine" as Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, so "Palestine" is only free if Israel ceases to exist. The Israelis aren't going to oblige.

      For the sake of argument, if the Israelis did oblige and the three territories became a single state of Palestine with an Arab majority, there's the problem that Palestinians have spent 70+ years raising their children to believe they have a religious duty to kill Jews and their collaborators and incentivising them to do it. So, Israelis have in effect already seen what a free Palestine would mean for them, on 7 October last year. It's also why they'll never accept a single-state solution with an Arab majority.

      The same problem affects a two-state solution. We've seen what that would be like in Gaza, where Hamas dedicated the entire resources of the territory to creating a force for attacking the Jews and a tunnel-based infrastructure for protecting Hamas (not Gazans in general, just Hamas) from Israeli retaliation. A Palestinian state would do the same thing.

      I used to support the idea of "free Palestine" but in the last 20 years the above issues have changed my mind. These days I think western countries should cease funding UNRWA and tell the Arab countries the Palestinians are strictly their problem to deal with.

      • SPC 4.3.1
        11 August 2024 at 10:00 pm

        Sure the 2000 outcome of the Oslo Accord was disappointing, The disengagement (withdrawal from rather than expansion of settlements) approach afterward was a holding pattern for some sort of co-existence (but the security fencing created its own issues).

        Then came the PA, in post Oslo Accord mode, allowing Hamas to stand in parliamentary elections – then losing and using the President control of the gun to drive them back to Gaza (they drove the forces of Fatah loyal to Abbas out of Gaza. Since then no elections and Fatah about as popular in the WB as Hamas now is in a ruined Gaza (support for Hamas rising in WB at the same time, resistance without cost being the more popular).

        And at the same time, Israel is in its peak nationalism mode, ambition for de facto annexation (hiding behind a security imperative), but this is of a singular gotterdammerung approach, at some point this time will pass and those of it will make way for those choosing a different path.

        The UN should provide Palestinian refugees with a UN passport.

      • Mikey 4.3.2
        12 August 2024 at 7:46 am

        The resources that went into building those tunnels could have helped a lot of people live better lives I'd have thought.

        • Muttonbird 4.3.2.1
          12 August 2024 at 7:51 am

          Better lives in prison (Gaza), or under occupation (West Bank)?

        • Psycho Milt 4.3.2.2
          12 August 2024 at 10:50 am

          Exactly. A huge number of Palestinian Arab Muslims have had their lives ruined or just plain ended due to the insane conviction that the 1948 war is ongoing and will one day end in victory of the Arabs over the Jews. Gaza didn't have to be a shithole, it was a conscious decision by Hamas leadership to make it one.

          • lprent 4.3.2.2.1
            12 August 2024 at 11:25 am

            Bullshit. Doesn’t make any difference because the Israelis don’t care, all they want to do is to steal land and have a slave population under their military finger.

            The PA and Fatah gave up that fight long ago. So what has happened in the West Bank?

            The IDF keeps allowing settlers to steal land from Palestinians on the flimsiest of legal excuses. The IDF deny existing Palestinian titles going back to the Ottomans by losing paperwork for decades, then deny being able to build on their land because of a lack of title. Then bulldoze and evict so that the unclaimed ‘state’ land can be used for more Israeli state funded settlements.

            The West bank runs on a series of ‘security’ checkpoints that open arbitarily and shut without a regular schedule. Exactly what is required to make sure that any local economy by Palestinians is continually disrupted.

            Essentially the Israeli government and population are engaged in a slow ongoing unlawful ethnic cleansing of a military occupied area.

            Address that rather than putting up a hypocritical straw man argument. All it does is look like you support criminals.

            Probably we have Kiwi’s helping fund this Israeli state terrorism. Maybe you?

          • Belladonna 4.3.2.2.2
            12 August 2024 at 11:27 am

            And a decision supported by all of the surrounding Arab countries. Both because they want a constant festering sore afflicting Israel (cf Iran); and because they don't want a wave of radicalized Palestinian immigrants (cf Egypt)

            The misery in Gaza (pre the current war) was overwhelmingly created (deliberately) by Hamas and the supporting governments.

            • Subliminal 4.3.2.2.2.1
              12 August 2024 at 12:53 pm

              Wow! Its the victims fault they are raped and tortured and their hospitals destroyed! Who would of known! Smotrich even asserts that the moral thing to do is to starve the remaining population! And you think these views just suddenly popped up on Oct 7??!

              • Belladonna …
                12 August 2024 at 2:45 pm

                It's the fault of the Arab countries that they failed to allow migration.

                • Subliminal …
                  12 August 2024 at 3:29 pm

                  Oh right. And you're all good with the actual IDF rapists and presumably would have joined in with the riots to free them and clapped and cheered the speeches by the Members of the Knesset proclaiming the right of IDF to shove hot metal, electrified rods into the anus of Palestinians held in Israeli detention centres?

                  • Belladonna …
                    13 August 2024 at 11:20 am

                    No, Sunshine. I'm pointing out the moral failure of the Arab countries, not condoning the moral failure of the Israelis.

  5. joe90 5
    11 August 2024 at 11:17 am

    wakanda forever! …lol…

  6. joe90 6
    11 August 2024 at 2:02 pm

    Instructions on eradicating references to climate change, diversity, equity and inclusion, to only talk to conservative media and not to leave paper trails for watchdogs to discover is some chilling shit.

    . But Project 2025’s plan to train an army of political appointees who could battle against the so-called deep state government bureaucracy on behalf of a future Trump administration remains on track.

    One centerpiece of that program is dozens of never-before-published videos created for Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy. The vast majority of these videos — 23 in all, totaling more than 14 hours of content — were provided to ProPublica and Documented by a person who had access to them.

    […]

    “If the American people elect a conservative president, his administration will have to eradicate climate change references from absolutely everywhere,” Kozma says.

    In the same video, Kozma calls the idea of gender fluidity “evil.” Another speaker, Katie Sullivan, who was an acting assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice under Trump, takes aim at executive actions by the administration of President Joe Biden that created gender adviser positions throughout the federal government. The goal, Biden wrote in one order, was to “advance equal rights and opportunities, regardless of gender or gender identity.”

    Sullivan says, “That position has to be eradicated, as well as all the task forces, the removal of all the equity plans from all the websites, and a complete rework of the language in internal and external policy documents and grant applications.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-project-2025-secret-training-videos-trump-election