https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Download the paper, read pages 10 and 11 for context.
Kepabar
joined 2 years ago
There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.
One questioned 'Why doesn't this include the president?'.
Another senator replied 'It does under the section of anyone who holds an office'.
The response was 'Ok, I was unclear on that'. And the debate carried on.
So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.
Which is the core reason why there is no peaceful solution.
Israel was founded as a Jewish ethnostate. Imagine if the same was done but it was a white ethnostate. Who would be the first to move there?
White nationalists who want a pure white ethnostate, that's who. That's what happened in Israel. Those who wanted àto separate themselves from 'the other'. It's why there is such a strong radical ethnic based faction of Jews in Israel whose views aren't reflected in most of the Jewish populations elsewhere.
Conversely, those who haven't found a way to flee Gaza over the decades are more likely to believe that they, as an ethnicity, are the rightful owners of the various holy sites and land in the area and the only solution is the removal or subjegation of the Jewish people from the region.
With both sides having significant and loud sections of their populations calling for the destruction of the other, how can peace ever happen?
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It's a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
God damned degenerates!
Joke pivots on the interpretation of the word 'address'. In this context it would mean 'how do you handle this problem'.
However, it can also mean 'what is the proper way to refer to something (Ms, Mrs, Your Majesty, etc).
The joke is instead of addressing meaning handle the dangerous situation it means what is the proper way to refer to the elephant.
The vast majority of Israeli's were born there at this point.
It's not a stolen home to them. It's the only home they've ever known.
What question do you want answered? Most of what you stated seemed to be rhetorical.
Why is this "Where do they go? 😞 " question relevant only now and only one way?
Because someone specifically told me that every Israeli should just leave Israel?
Are you not following the converstation here?
That's what makes the whole thing complicated, isn't it?
Israel shouldn't have existed to begin with and when it did, it shouldn't have acted the way it has since its inception.
Yes, Israel is to blame for Hamas having power in Gaza today as well.
I'm not arguing that Israel isn't a bad guy here.
What I'm arguing is I don't see an alternative that doesn't just kick the can down the road.
Actually, it really might in this case.
A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.
Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.