US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Many Israels and Palestinian share similar values...hard work ethic, interest in Soccer as we in the USA say, and in Basketball. I hope that the those that support equality prevail in Israel and Palestine, its a matter of time before the entities become United. The Status quo of Israel/Palestine is looked on unfavorably by history, something has to give and it should be One state Unified.
I am not sure if interest in sports can be counted as common values, but if so, world peace is just around the corner. Happy happy joy joy.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2011
2,160
This focus on "peace," really seems myopic.

"But wait. Deep down (you can almost hear the outside world ask), don't Israelis know that finding peace with the Palestinians is the only way to guarantee their happiness and prosperity? Well, not exactly. Asked in a March poll to name the "most urgent problem" facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty. Israeli Arabs placed peace first, but among Jews here, the issue that President Obama calls "critical for the world" just doesn't seem — critical."

Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace
Yes, I have long suspected that Israel doesn't want peace.

You ask "what has the international community got to do with it?". Well, the most important international fact is that USA subsidises Israel by $3 billion a year and backs it to the hilt whatever it does; were it not for this Israel would have had to make a settlement with the Palestinians a long time ago.

There are also the matters of international law and morality, but you appear not to care about either.
 
Dec 2015
3,490
USA
Yeah, India and Pakistan both love cricket, so this absolutely has to result in peace between them sometime soon! ;) Any day now! ;)
Thats not how I feel mate. I will say Cricket games between India and Pakistan results in friendships formed between the two peoples of each country. Sports can and has been used to bring peoples together. But Israel Palestine is different from India/Pakistan. India and Pakistan are independent. Where as Israel acts as a sort of overlord to Palestine. Palestinians I know dislike both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, they want a situation where people are equal and the current Israeli and PA gov support intolerance.
 
Likes: Futurist
Oct 2011
25,849
Italy, Lago Maggiore
When I have to reason a bit about Israel and Middle East, I tend to leave a part principles and great ideals, going back to mere and rude geopolitics.

I like to repeat that when Israel declared its independence 2+1 powers run to recognize it: USA and USSR immediately and then Turkey. Not UK ... UK waited [in Israel the British Empire wasn't meeting a great success and at London they probably guessed that an independent Jewish State would haven't beeen a sure ally for them].

This simply describes the geopolitical scenario: US, USSR and Turkey had all the interests to kick UK out of Middle East [which was becoming extremely strategical]. Was israel also a potential useful ally in the area to keep the Arabs divided? Fantastic.

Let's not forget that the relations between Israel and USSR were good at the beginning [Israel was almost a Socialist country!] and that US worked to improve its on relations with the Jewish state. Turkay kept for decades a strong alliance with Israel within an anti-Arab strategy. Recently this alliance has been broken because of political reasons [Turkey has changed its own geopolitics in ME, but it's still quite anti-Arab, sure anti-Saudi Arab ...].

To recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel is simply a step towards the direction of the realization of a long term geopolitical plan, with Israel as regional power "on behalf" of the United States. I'm really curious to see, in case the next President will be Democrat, if the US embassy will go back to Tel Aviv ... I doubt.
 
May 2014
17,694
SoCal
If anything, it could exacerbate it. A majority populace can be at its most moderate, compassionate, and magnanimous when it feels entirely in control of its territory. Here in Korea, for example, "multicultural families" are treated with generosity. Why? Precisely because the Korean people at large feel in control: those families are here because the Korean people welcomed them, and the fact that their minor presence is no threat means that there is little corresponding risk with that welcome. By contrast, real tensions could form if a massive influx of foreigners occurred. How do you think Koreans would feel were they forced to pay for the primary and secondary education of millions of foreign children, whose parents simultaneously insisted that the education system be "de-Koreanized" in order to properly accommodate them? How do you think Korean workers would feel if foreigners suddenly became statistically meaningful competition for them, rather than a complement to their labor? I suspect not very happy.
That's certainly a fair point, but the lesson of this might be that countries should either be almost completely homogeneous or else be majority-minority. American Whites were probably less fearful about their country back when they were a solid majority of the US population (80+%), but possibly became much more paranoid after their percentage shrunk to 60%. However, once their percentage will become sufficiently low (40%? Even less than that?), they simply won't have enough political power to actively impose their agenda over the rest of the country regardless of just how resentful they will get. For instance, look at California--where the White percentage is now below 40% and where the multicultural Democratic Party has a monopoly on power nowadays.

On the other hand, could it not be that a personage like Modi only won because there already are so many Muslims in India? Muslims are what, about 15% of the population? They may well be exactly the irritant which induces Hindus to support "Hindu Nationalism." By contrast, if India were 97% Hindu (for example), tolerance and accommodation may well be somewhat easier. Throw in another several hundred million more Muslims, and you'd probably have an even more tense situation. Hell, you might even end up with a civil war, especially with Pakistan as a neighbor which holds ambitions regarding some Indian territory.
Yes, that's certainly an excellent point. Hindus right now are, what, 80% of India's total population? That's not completely secure, but it is much more secure than if they were 60% of the total population.

And again, increasing diversity, increasing pro-diversity ideology, and increasing hostility towards "majority" culture probably played a non-trivial role in people turning to a candidate like Trump. Likewise, an influx of migrants into Europe has evidently resulted in at least some rise in right-wing ideology of a similar character. I'm not going to say these factors are the only cause at work here -- there are definitely others, especially the side effects of economic globalism -- but there seems to be a correlation.
Yes, certainly. Interestingly enough, though, please keep in mind that Trump actually doesn't appear to oppose merit-based immigration. He only opposes immigration when he thinks that immigrants are likely to be a burden on the US or perhaps have values that he dislikes. I'm talking about a merit-based immigration system for Israel here.

Yes, that argument could have been made by American Whites, and it would have been valid. Instead, American Whites chose to give up that space, and now they're going to have to live with the long-term consequences. The fact that a non-trivial portion of them seem unhappy with those consequences may provide a lesson relevant to this topic, since once you let the "genie of diversity" out of its bottle, putting it back in without resorting to violent atrocity is very, very difficult.
Completely agreed.

Perhaps so in limited measure, but on the other hand, going to far in importing foreign high-achievers to compete with your domestic population for high status, high compensation employment may exacerbate the situation even further.
To be fair, though, high-IQ immigrants could also create additional, possibly high-paying jobs in the country that they will move to.

Your worst case scenario is to spend nearly three decades of one of your citizen's life training them through an advanced qualification only for them to be unable to find adequate employment due to excessive competition, after all. Think about the toxic situation in American academia, for example, where many highly qualified individuals are working for a pittance and have no job security because the labor market for what they provide is essentially flooded.
That's certainly an excellent point! In fact, one of the reasons that I rejected the idea of trying to go into academia is my fear that I will end up as a severely overworked and severely underpaid adjunct for the rest of my life. :(

There might be some--if not a lot of--room in the US for STEM specialists (especially if they will help create additional jobs here in the US), but for academics, not so much.

Moreover, it's easy to forget that luring in highly qualified immigrants comes at the cost of inflicting "brain drain" upon another country instead, which is hardly equitable or ideal on a global scale. Someone has to stand up and do the hard work of adequately training and retaining their own citizens, and there's no reason that someone can't be Israel, since at least Israel is economically positioned to provide incentives to retain its people.
I do agree that immigrants have some moral obligation to stay in their country and try to improve it if their country subsidized their education. The brain drain argument is also a good one, but not quite as potent as you think. After all, by that logic, a Southern racist in the early 20th century in the US could have said that state-mandated segregation is good for blacks because it keeps their smart people (smart teachers, smart doctors, smart engineers, smart businessmen, et cetera) within their communities whereas these smart people would have moved out of these black communities and into mostly white communities had it not been for state-mandated segregation.
 
Yes, I have long suspected that Israel doesn't want peace.

You ask "what has the international community got to do with it?". Well, the most important international fact is that USA subsidises Israel by $3 billion a year and backs it to the hilt whatever it does; were it not for this Israel would have had to make a settlement with the Palestinians a long time ago.

There are also the matters of international law and morality, but you appear not to care about either.
Both parties
Thats not how I feel mate. I will say Cricket games between India and Pakistan results in friendships formed between the two peoples of each country. Sports can and has been used to bring peoples together. But Israel Palestine is different from India/Pakistan. India and Pakistan are independent. Where as Israel acts as a sort of overlord to Palestine. Palestinians I know dislike both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, they want a situation where people are equal and the current Israeli and PA gov support intolerance.
If the Palestinians dislike their Palestinian authorities, why don`t they vote in decent ones? Why indeed both Israelis and Palestinians don`t vote for authorities who would bring peace? Considering they both like soccer.
 
Oct 2011
3,903
Korea
  • Fox

    Fox

That's certainly a fair point, but the lesson of this might be that countries should either be almost completely homogeneous or else be majority-minority. American Whites were probably less fearful about their country back when they were a solid majority of the US population (80+%), but possibly became much more paranoid after their percentage shrunk to 60%. However, once their percentage will become sufficiently low (40%? Even less than that?), they simply won't have enough political power to actively impose their agenda over the rest of the country regardless of just how resentful they will get. For instance, look at California--where the White percentage is now below 40% and where the multicultural Democratic Party has a monopoly on power nowadays.
While it's true that in a "majority minority" polity, the "majority" will not have the power to actively impose its agenda. Yet what happens instead is that a bloc of groups combine and do the same thing. Indeed, California seems to me to be a strong example of the state imposing the desired agenda of a certain bloc of voters, so much so that one from time to time hears about the desire of certain parts of California to break away and form a new state. In short, while the demographic bloc whose will is being imposed is different, the imposition remains, and perhaps even intensifies. Is that truly better from a long-term perspective? I suppose how one evaluates it will depend upon what one wants out of society, so I won't say that it's "worse" in any objective sense. I can certainly see why it would concern some people, though.

To be fair, though, high-IQ immigrants could also create additional, possibly high-paying jobs in the country that they will move to.
If you can find an individual who is intelligent, already educated, ambitious, and who will produce an entirely new field for one's society without intruding upon already existing domestic businesses, and that individual is also content to live within the cultural matrix your native born population desires, then accepting them certainly seems like a potential "win" for one's own society, albeit at the cost of denying talent to the would-be immigrant's homeland.

There might be some--if not a lot of--room in the US for STEM specialists (especially if they will help create additional jobs here in the US), but for academics, not so much.
The lack of massive wage inflation in STEM fields makes me suspect that a lot of the fixation on STEM immigration is about keeping wages down rather than genuine shortages, but I have to admit that I don't have a lot of first hand experience with the topic and am relying on what I've heard to inform me on the topic rather than direct data, so I may be misinformed.

The brain drain argument is also a good one, but not quite as potent as you think. After all, by that logic, a Southern racist in the early 20th century in the US could have said that state-mandated segregation is good for blacks because it keeps their smart people (smart teachers, smart doctors, smart engineers, smart businessmen, et cetera) within their communities whereas these smart people would have moved out of these black communities and into mostly white communities had it not been for state-mandated segregation.
Someone I know actually told me that they once heard a Black academic make exactly this point in favor of segregation, actually. It's a good argument on its own merits. It's simply that it's not the only relevant argument, and that most people would consider the arguments against segregation to be both more numerous and stronger.
 
Likes: Futurist