It’s over!!! Muslim communities in Michigan endorse….

Jews for Hitler.

That it is. Because there are so many to choose from.

 

Correct. Trump will support anything Netanyahu says or does. He'll do nothing for the Muslims.

 

Putin owns Trump. Trump is his lapdog.

 

Massive projection.

Ridiculous.

 

I don’t think Harris will “do anything for the Muslims” either, at least not in the sense that you mean. But she doesn’t come out and say it. What you get is half-ass platitudes for the Arabs living in Israel and half-ass admonishments for the Israeli government. I guess that’s something, but is that what you mean by something?

 

I don't doubt that Trump made that statement although based on his history while he was probably telling truth regarding the former (Ukraine) going all out Neville Chamberlain by appeasing Russia. It wouldn't even surprise me if Trump should he be elected use language to the effect of Chamberlain's proclaiming that he was responsible for negotiating "peace in our time" If they believed him regarding the Middle East and apparently they did, they're as gullible as the students of Trump University. There is virtually no chance that Trump will even try to pressure Netanyahu and I cannot see either the Arabic nations or Americans of Arabic descent willing to accept the Israeli far right's version of a solution to the situation in the Middle East which would essentially be a Jewish state from the River to the Sea with maybe a small number of non-contiguous Palestinian "Bantustans".

 

Well, I don’t think that’s much of a solution either. Its only virtue is that it is a solution: Israel imposes its will, and the Arabs adjust to it. What is not a solution is this two-state fantasy, and everyone who brings it up either knows it can’t work (but act like they believe in it for political expediency) or has not thought through any of the details.

There are only two practical solutions to this problem. The first, as discussed, is Israel imposes its will, and that means a combination of depopulating the intransigent Arab areas and assimilating the Arabs who are willing to be loyal, productive citizens in a Jewish-majority state. The second is a multi-state solution, where Egypt, Jordan, and possibly Syria assume control of some of the territory that they used to control but Israel currently controls, they accept the Arabs there as full citizens, and — this is the critical part — they police that ground. Anything between those two options is destined to fail.

 

Actually, both of those solutions are more doomed to fail than a two-state solution. The first involves mass ethnic cleansing. I don't even think Netanyahu wants that * next to his name. The second is a non-starter, because at the very least, Egypt and Jordan would almost certainly allow those regions autonomy, if for nothing else, neither wants the headache.

The most realistic and practical way to head off the issue involves one of these two solutions:

1. sanctions re-imposed on Iran and enforced (meaning any country who buys oil from them will be severely punished via tariff, aid, etc). Thus effectively de-funding their proxies in the region.
2. regime change in Tehran, which is always a slippery slope and not as easy as some may think it is.

P.S. Both sides have openly committed to a two-state solution for years, so going back on that is impossible and impractical.

 

Yeah, both sides are “committed” to a two-state solution. But that “commitment” is, as I said, for political expediency. Both sides understand such an arrangement is not viable long-term, but it’s in both sides’ political interest to blame the other for why such an “obvious” answer has not been put into effect.

I don’t dispute that Iran is a problem and that either of the two solutions you outline would help the situation, but Iran is not the problem. The problem is that area we would like to call Palestine is not an intrinsically viable state. The first issue, for which there is no realistic solution, is that the two parts, the West Bank (assuming you can achieve a split of that territory both sides would accept) and Gaza, are wholly separated from each other by what will be hostile territory. Any right-of-passage agreement will fail over the long-term. See Pakistan and Bangladesh as an example. The second issue is that neither territory can self-sustain, and combined they’re even worse off. The West Bank might be able to feed itself, barely, but it has no other natural resources to speak of. Its best legitimate potential for economic growth seems to be in a tourist industry (since it contains the traditional birthplace of Jesus), but there are a goodly number of cultural factors that are an effective obstacle to that. And before anyone wants to get offended and disagree, please assert on here that you would gladly take your family on a vacation to the West Bank without the IDF to come to your rescue. Gaza is even worse. It cannot even feed itself, and its only real value is as a trading port. But as a trading port to what? Nothing is going there to Israel or Egypt, and it’s a fiction to believe it’s going through to the West Bank. So you’ve got a “state” that is going to be inexorably impoverished, dependent on the rest of the world to be sustained artificially. Even with mountains of foreign aid pouring in (much of which will be sucked up by corruption), this state is still going to be consumed by the only real historic industry available to it: piracy. It will becoming a dumping ground for every problem child the Islamic world wants to get rid of “Go to Palestine, fight the Jews, and cleanse yourself of your sins.” It will become a safe haven for further piratical attacks on Israel. Its feckless government will be both unwilling and unable to deal with these attacks, but will demand further tribute to go through the motions of trying. Israel will be in a perpetual state of quasi war with these groups, having to launch one reprisal raid after another on its “sovereign” neighbor.

No, the only way these two territories are solvent in terms of economy and security is as parts of larger countries. Gaza could become a thriving port as part of northern Egypt. Elements of the West Bank could likewise thrive under stable Jordanian administration.

And, yes, I get that those two countries are, today, unwilling to be part of such a solution. But that’s the only way this thing has a chance to work in the long run. Everyone has to give ground, not just Israel. The test case is Gaza. Egypt could take charge tomorrow, Israel could permanently pull out, and the world would gratefully pay for Gaza’s reconstruction with a little extra for Egypt’s generous service to the peace of the world. The West Bank is admittedly more difficult. Splitting it between the Arabs and Jews who live there will be no easy task, no matter how many states are part of this solution. Israel won’t just agree to cede the whole of it, and I don’t blame them. I think Israel is only, like, 13 miles wide at one point without at least some of that land as a security zone.

 

Not true at all. Muslims make up 2.4% of Michigan's population. Since they are recent arrivals to Michigan, the adult population is likely less than 2.4% (I'm guessing the children won't vote). Harris has a 2-4% polling edge over Trump in battleground states, which includes Michigan, according to independent polling outfits. So Harris can afford to lose the Muslim vote and still have a good chance to win Michigan. The outcome will just be closer, that's all.

 

Also from the above article: while Trumps leads with men by 51-45%, Trump fails to convince women that he'll be their protector as he rapes them, so Harris leads with women 56-42%. Who knew?

And as far as the idea that Trump is making headway with Black voters, the poll says that Harris will win likely Black voters 90-7. Blowout city.

 

Looks like its over. Trump is giving up, according to New York's governor. That is the only thing that explains why Trump is campaigning in New York City while Harris is out campaigning in battleground state Pennsylvania. He's surrendering, and hoping for some adulation before the curtain closes on him. Not unlike Hillary campaigning in California for a couple weeks before the 2016 election. I thought this election was going to be a close win, but not a blowout, for Harris. Looks like I may have been wrong.

Hochul says Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally is a ‘white flag of surrender’

 

And you've perfectly laid out the case why the U.S. shouldn't fiddle so much in international affairs. While I agree with you that the two sides only "committed" to a two-state solution to placate the mediating parties, that is kinda what we're stuck with now. Any more or less than a two-state solution will be seen as a sleight of hand by the adversely impacted side and most of our allies, frankly. The U.S. can't retain credibility by backtracking on a two-state solution at this stage.

As for Iran, they are 100% why we are having this discussion right now. Without them, there would be no war right now in Gaza or Lebanon. I do not see how Gaza or the West Bank has to be much different than any of the other Arab countries in the region in terms of minding their own with regard to Israel. The only reason that's not happening is because Iran are funding proxies and making life for Israelis a living, breathing nightmare. In turn, Israel has made the lives of Gazans a living, breathing nightmare. But the terrorist groups that run these places are Iranian funded. It starts and ends with Iran.

As far as Egypt and Jordan, I think you should remember that the whole point (for most Arabs) is that Palestinians have their own state. If Egypt or Jordan simply annex Gaza and/or the West Bank, that undercuts the principle they've been leaning on for decades. That is why it hasn't happened yet, because everyone minus Israel believes Palestine should have its own borders.

Why were the sanctions removed from Iran? Why are the ones currently in place not being enforced? Why do we allow a terrorist state to sell billions of dollars of oil? Are we operating out of fear? Fear of a nuclear Iran? If it's an inevitability we can't live with, fire up the jets already and take them out. I would be fully on board with that idea. But letting ourselves be bullied around by a terrorist state is not the way.

on edit: didn't want to skip over the point you raised about economic prowess. My retort to that would be that there are a lot of very poor countries in the world. That doesn't necessarily destine them to become terror regimes.

 

My question is would Muslim/Arab residents of Michigan actually vote for a candidate who wants Netanyahu to "finish the job in Gaza".
Trump on Israel-Hamas war: I'd tell Netanyahu to finish it up and do it quickly

 

I agree and this is an issue I’ve moved on. At this point the idea of a 2 state solution is total fantasy. While there is a sizeable minority of Israelis that oppose it, Israel would abide by it. Palestinians can’t and won’t. I don’t know if a majority of them oppose it, but certainly the most active and motivated of them oppose it, as they oppose the existence of Israel, period.

I’m not a fan of Netanyahu, because he is a criminal, he tried to get rid of the judiciary and has his own selfish ambitions at heart. His negligence largely lead to Oct 7th. The funny thing is I generally do support what he has done militarily - but at the same time I don’t trust his motives, because as long as he is engaging in war, he is staying in power and staying out of trouble.

 

You make two diametrically opposed statements. On the one hand, you don't think we should "fiddle" in international affairs. On the other, you say that letting ourselves be bullied around by a terrorist state is not the way. Well, which is it? Russia is essentially a terrorist state, using its entire army instead of a single bomber with explosives. You want to basically let one terrorist state have an entire neighboring country (without funding that nation's defense), while you want to take out a smaller country for distributing weapons in the middle east. Are you a bully, only willing to take on our weaker opponents? Or are you dumb enough to buy Putin's idiotic reasons for invading Ukraine?

By the way, if the U.S. did not "fiddle" in international affairs as successfully as it has in the last 50 years, the world would be an absolute mess, with many more countries invading and killing each other. No telling which countries Russia and China would have overrun in the last 50 years. Most likely, Russia would have won in Afghanistan, and then proceeded to invade Pakistan (they were looking for a warm-water port, which Afghanistan would not give them).

 

We knew all of this before proposing the two-state solution many years ago. I don't see how the U.S. backs away from that now. Seems like that would only make things worse and more chaotic in the region. Which may be what you want, given your support of the pro-war candidate.

 

It's cruel and unusual punishment to Muslim people to give them false hope of assimilating a mostly Judeo-Chistian nation into a country of Islam. So, it is imperative that we save these people by denying them entry (new Muslims) into the U.S.A., because that would give them false hope of changing our nation into a land of Islam, and that is indeed cruel and unusual punishment to those people that live by their religion. You cannot separate these people from their religion and their religious goals to assimilate all other peoples into Islam. So keeping them out is the only solution to prevent that near future cruelty to them. We must save them from themselves be keeping them out...

 

Nice try.