That's an absolutely bonkers take. I'm sorry but it's unhinged.

I will admit that I know nothing about Israel's current politics other than that Netanyahu is corrupt and if not for this war he'd likely have been impeached and ousted. I appreciate this post and all this information.

The British first started settling Jews in Israel when it was British Palestine.

It was British territory. You have to respect conquest and annexation. If you don't then I could make a case through roundabout historical arguments that Israel belongs to the Jews anyway because they were there thousands of years ago in 700 BC and Arabs were not! That would make us occupiers of native American land. Where does the madness end? An endless attempt to make things right in history by going back to the first peoples of the land? In that case all of England would need to be repopulated back in Northern Germany. Half of Northern Italy would need to be repatriated in Belarus.

We would somehow need to move all of South America into Spain.

Australia would become deserted and returned only to the aboriginals.

It's unreasonable to not respect conquest and annexation. Is it moral, no? We don't have the PHYSICAL capacity for perfect justice when it comes to a question of this large magnitude. I subscribe to realpolitik.

So if we're trying to maximize justice for those still alive and not judging up ancestral grievances of who conquered who... We need to focus on practical considerations only for the people currently alive not who was living there 100 years ago.

Furthermore I would say that displacing some Palestinians to give refuge to a people that were recently genocided on mass in World War II is a moral goal. Is it a perfect solution? No. Is it a reasonable and mostly good one? Yes.

How should it have been handled? They should have bought the land from Palestinians. In many cases they did. But that didn't stop false claims of colonialism.

I'm all in favor of giving Palestinians reparations but after that it needs to be in exchange for releasing all claims to the land. And they need to be resettled with equity and dignity in friendly Arab nations with a compatible culture.

You want to talk justice, it doesn't become easy, it gets very messy very fast and I'm fine with the taking on that approach. But I have the stomach for it and I'm not sure the vast majority of people do.

There's yet another solution that could be equitable for all. That of a UN protectorate. As far as I'm aware that's the only perfect solution. But it's the least practical and the most unlikely because it makes literally no one happy despite being what's truly just.

A UN protectorate would make sense anyway because technically the whole world has cultural claim to Jerusalem and the surroundings.

And it could lay the foundation for a sensible and accountable democratic world government.

But conspiracy nuts won't ever allow that. And there's other less fantastical reasons for opposition as well that are more grounded in self-interest and selfishness and monetary reasons.

I think the solution is a permanent occupation and annexation of Gaza using this as a pretext. This is something that I support because a two-state solution is not practical considering the geography of Israel and turns Israel into Swiss cheese when you look at the borders on a map.

Israel holds the high ground morally ever since they were attacked during the wars of the 20th century. There's not a shred of religious influence in my support. It's purely the fact that they've been the underdog throughout the 20th century and attacked endlessly by their neighbors yet they have been gracious to them in victory and yet all it has inspired is further enmity and war. That is why I side with Israel. When Egypt attacked them in the 1960s they took the entire Sinai peninsula and they gave it back out of Goodwill. How have they been repaid for their generosity in victory? They were attacked in a defensive war and then took enemy territory and then gave it back out of generosity. And what was the reward? Terrorist attacks and more war of aggression. Israel has made some mistakes in the way they've handled the Palestinian situation. There have been times when they have unnecessarily harm civilians and they certainly don't have blood free hands. But they are light years cleaner than all their neighbors. They are absolutely 100% the lesser of all evils in that area.

So I support the occupation of Gaza and I support the permanent annexation of Gaza. Its very clear to me that that's what this is about. But annexation and occupation do not equate to genocide. You can annex a territory and give it citizens civil rights. Over time they become more like the original state. They become israelized. Romanized. Americanized. Etc.

When Israel controls all of the territories within its borders including the West Bank then there will be peace. And they should give civil rights to those conquered peoples and treat them with respect.

So under this ridiculously broad definition any war whatsoever is genocide.

We both know that's not a good definition nor is it really an accurate one historically. Nor is it what the vast overwhelming majority of people think genocide means.

And if the vast overall majority of people think one thing of a word that it doesn't matter that a book says this is the actual meaning because people collectively decide what the meaning of words are.

Either way even this broad approach fails anyway because Israel is not trying to destroy Palestinians They're trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.

You should absolutely not abolish the stock market because it's the single way most average people have to becoming wealthy. What you should do is change how it operates. Here's a novel idea I've had for a long time.

Make more and more companies worker co-ops going forward by incentivizing them the attacks credits and local government health in getting them started. Preserve 75% of the company for the people who actually work there which is what makes it a worker's co-op.

Reserve 25% of the company for speculation on Wall Street and to raise capital if they need to.

This way you can have sort of a socialist economy that avoids abuses and a stock market at the same time that provides liquidity and efficiency.

As someone that has worked on Wall Street as a professional trader I can agree with what you're saying and I agree that it needs to change. We need to get rid of this idea of endless growth. It's just not reasonable to expect that from every industry considering that industries have cycles and eventually they mature.

You hit a point of maximum (Pareto) efficiency where people are actually driving the most possible benefit from a business and there's a good healthy return financially. And then businesses feel the need to overshoot that and water down the quality of the product until people stop buying it entirely.

Then they just blame changing consumer demand rather than taking responsibility.

It's a real problem and it's going to impact our lives going forward much more aggressively as corporations win the culture war.

I would say something around 10 to 15% would be an appropriate profit margin. But they would need to not try and get around that just by boosting executive pay. Now if they give the workers themselves better pay...

That's good because they are. Sometimes they don't even have the prices accurate I've actually had to report my local Target to the department of weights and measures because they don't even have prices at the register that match what's on the shelves.

Camacho/Not Sure 2024!

Communists are by default and especially the tanky variety, not respectful of people having different views. That's why people don't like them.