Kieselguhr [none/use name]

That was under Reagan! Bill Clinton tried to solve the problem!

FINKELSTEIN: Briefly, because we don’t have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let’s start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% — 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.

Borders. The principle is clear. I don’t want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, “occupied Palestinian territories.” Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won’t dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There’s differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.

Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I’m not going to get into now — they are complicated, but I’m sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.

And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about — which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact — I’m not going to get into the numbers, because it’s very hard to pin it down — other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That’s well short of six million.

On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book — he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture.

sorry, but Putin will invade UK first, they just need to get through a couple of villages

(send money)

One of the things I hate, not just about US elections, but European ones as well, is that how many top intellectuals turn out to be worthless, spineless shitlibs.

Intellectually I know that the intelligentsia is petit bourgeois, but it’s always such a disappointment that a smart and sensitive writer/director/musician/academic whatever (doesn’t matter who, there are quite a few) turn out to be so fucking dumb when it comes to electoral politics.

I get the lesser evil arguments, and I absolutely disagree with them as a strategy, but I do get it as a kind of utilitarian argument, but then these people behave like and talk like they didn’t truly believe that the liberal career politicians are actually evil. And that’s the whole premise of lesser evilism! If we don’t agree on that, then we aren’t even on the same side!

But it seems like they actually tolerate, even like these fucking ghouls?! Fuck off

The whole lesser evilism is just sophistry: I don’t think I ever talked to someone who made the lesser evil argument who actually viscerally believed these ghouls to be evil.

Even Queen Latifah endorsed Kamala, and she never endorses anyone! It was a perfectly run campaign

Republicans are fascists

We’ll give them a seat at the table

Trump is the worst threat to America

[loses election]

we will peacefully transfer the power to fascists, but we are La Résistance

15 years from now, after Biden and Trump died, liberals will be proud to have Ivanka and Don Jr. on their side against President Tucker Carlson’s second run for presidency.

Can’t they borrow the CIA’s heart attack gun? Since Trump is the biggest threat to America?

Either Trump isn’t Hitler 2.0 or they don’t give a shit that he’s Hitler 2.0

Obama extra-judicially killed American citizens. Surely Hitler 2.0 is a bigger threat than a 16 year old?

The whole point of modern liberal democracy, from the liberal perspective, is that it’s like a market: the entrepreneur/party identifies (or creates!) a demand for a solution/product/policy package, then brings it to market/nominates a candidate and launches a marketing campaign. If you profit/win the election, you did a good job; otherwise, you failed. You are bankrupt. You should leave the market.
If your proposal does not represent the views of the voters, if you lose the popular vote, by definition, you did a shit job.

Not only they don’t know jack shit about Marxism, they don’t even understand their own theory.

The funny thing is they could easily do the old political trick and make false promises during election season. The Democrats did it all the time. Just lie that you’ll give people proper healthcare then shrug after the election. Just lie that you’ll prosecute the Wall Street plutocrats.

But they don’t even want to pretend to be centre-left, they want to be Reagan democrats so fucking much they can’t even fucking pretend to be anything else.

Vice President Kamala Harris has said in the current campaign that she supports raising the federal minimum wage. But her campaign hasn’t specified an exact figure.

They could have made this the main message of their campaign, but it’s not even a bullshit promise at this point.

and the US humanities students infected by cultural Marxism! We are the true antifa, we swear!

I wonder what is thinking right now. Did they manage to push Biden left? Did the Americans have a good and honest discussion about dismantling the two-party system?

Slaves should have voted the slavers out of government

The budget must be balanced. The markets need to be sated. We must heal the economy. Your nan has to be sacrificed.

Were the justifications of austerity always this self-evidently wrong?

Yes.
But usually they also use the subterfuge of comparing a sovereign nations budget to a household’s finances. "If you’re family is in debt, you have to cut spending. That is why nan needs to die in the cold. It’s basic economics. There is no alternative. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. "

um helllooo, Herr Zenz, how’s it going?

they are also freedom fighters against BIG WOKE