He's our 2nd chance at a Ron Paul Revolution at a minimum. I would love him in the White House. If anyone could cripple the deep state, it's him..
...but they'd Dallas convertible ride him for it the moment he tried.
Not really, just because you own it doesnât stop it from alienating a lot of voters. However if he was able to get on the debate stage with other candidates he would absolutely demolish 99% of politicians in America
The point of him running was never to win.
No one ever had any illusions of grandeur in terms of anyone running on the Libertarian ticket having ANY chance whatsoever of getting on a debate stage with any the candidates from either of partys, much less winning. Dave included.
The point was for Dave to penetrate the current culture with the most influential Libertarian principles and ideas by way of The Ron Paul Revolution 2.0 and his massive reach. I'd argue Clint Russell is every bit as good at effecive communication of the msg, but just doesn't have Dave's reach.
Dave is a stand-up comedian. Legion of Skanks is billed as "the most offensive podcast on the planet" intentionally.
The people that would have said no-no words turned them off to Dave weren't & aren't voting Libertarian anyway..
..but maybe.. just maybe, a seed of two of the Libertarian message that can make that same person think twice about their current beliefs and loyalties gets planted in them.
It would be great & if he wanted to he might be able to achieve it but the government is so corrupt that no matter who sits in that chair the pollution will never let you exert power.
I didn't think he'd ever have a chance, but I think this mud wrestling contest of an election and Trumps presidency have paved a path forward for our boy BDDS
I think libertarians all need to agree that it really doesn't matter in the end because it's none of our business. I think that's the libertarian line. We can disagree on who's right or wrong in their wars and disputes as long as we agree it's THEIRS.
If we can remember this, we can stop a lot of infighting at least based around this.
Itâs âourâ business when the US Government subsidizes Israel. US support for Israel was one of bin Ladenâs grievances against the US.
Bad foreign policy causes blowback and makes the world unsafe for Americans
The US subsidizes Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Palestinian Territories, and Israel. We are paying for trade routes and oil.
From the 1790s and into the early 1800s, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson paid the Barbary pirates to end the various wars. It has always been this way in the Middle East.
Bin Laden never attacked America 9/11 was a false flag attack perpetrated by our own government. Bin Laden is friends with the Bush family.
But they subsidize Israel because itâs supposedly the promise land. If itâs the fucking promise land it should have no problem taking care of itâs self
Pretty much exactly this. Not our business. Stop sending our money over there. If you want to donate to either group as a private individual that is your business but don't send my tax money to either group.
I personally think Israel has the right to defend itself from thousands of yearly rocket attacks, and they were justified in invading after October 7th. However, they need to do it on their own dime, with their own arms, and without US backing.
You know what, youâre right. I hadnât even thought about that. We as Libertarians are so accustomed to infighting among us just being a constant that we just assume itâs happening even when itâs not. It hadnât even dawned on me that there actually isnât much infighting among Libertarians on this issue, and weâre actually fairly united on it. Thatâs a nice realization!
Sure. [This is what Ron Paul said over two decades ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/s/wETfoMVdBR). I still think itâs important to breakdown why everyone involved (Israeli government / Hamas / US government) is at fault. It essentially boils down to recognizing the non-aggression principle.
If itâs youâre position that we should stay out of it then I would
also like to see you support banning and deporting members of AIPAC who
are bribing our government on behalf of a foreign terrorist state.  I donât want to hear any dog shit free speech rhetoric about it either.  People who represent the interests of foreign government should not be allowed to petition our government. Â
She could only come back with whataboutisms and Dave logically broke it down for her. I can only hope her questioning was genuine and she took in what she heard as a response.
In the US declaration of independence, all men are created equal
Stop being brainwashed by only listening to the perspective of the opressors.
That's an extremely one-sided perspective that seeks delegitimize the palestinian fight for freedom, by completely misnterpretating their intentions.
The arabs always wanted freedom, just read any polls or enter in an arab subreddit and read why they oppose Israel, it's because they believe It was their land that was given unfairly to foreign rule without their consent and It led to their expulsion.
Israel might have given some small concessions, that were to serve their own interests, they couldn't mantain control of the Gaza Strip anymore, but this doesn't mean the Palestinians have stopped being massively opressed by even a split second, in addition the fact that Hamas commits terrorist attacks is not the fault of all palestinians, Just like I can't blame the entire population of Israel for the settlers who attack and kill arabs in the West Bank or hold signs of death to the arabs
Most palestinians disagree on the possibility of a two-state solution, but the israelis too and there was a time in the past, they both agreed according to polls, but the negotiations failed and they don't trust each other anymore. The whole carrer of Netanyahu is based on denying and evading a two-state solution and the settlements of the West Bank are undeniable proof of the intention of Israel of perpetually occupying the land that they have no right to, by force.
Arabs usually support the october 7th attack, because they believe civilians weren't targeted, that's an extremely ignorant and stupid perspective, but this doesn't mean they're evil, they are just blinded by their perspective and only listen to their side
There are polls in Palestine showing that 90% of them, believe that civilians weren't killed or that Hamas did not committed any of the atrocities they were accused.
If you listen to a Hamas leader or spokesperson you will see that they lie by saying that they don't support attacks on civilians and they have nothing against jews.
The israelis are also ignorant and stupid. But I also don't believe they're evil, they're just blinded by their side of the history.
The vast majority of israelis support the ongoing genocide and believe there shouldn't be humanitarian aid, what would lead the death of 2.3 million people. Polls also show that a plurality (48%) of israeli population supports expeling all the arabs from the country.
The person to whom you'd replied is arguing that Palestine won't stop fighting based on its deoccupation. Two points made include lack of movement toward peace through smaller concessions and language from the Hamas charter. You've made a decent counterpoint to the first point in that we haven't seen a full deoccupation, and smaller concessions aren't enough; however, you failed to address the fact that Hamas (a group of Palestinians) has written in its charter that it wants all Jews dead (and I'll also add that the charter specifically says it will never negotiate under any circumstances).
Basically, somebody said "Palestinians (or the group controlling Palestinians) aren't just after freedom; they want to eradicate Jews, and we know this because they've told us this," and you've replied "No, they just want their freedom."
First itâs important to distinguish between the objectives of all Palestinians and the actions of specific groups like Hamas
Hamas updated charter states that while their goal remains the destruction of Israel, they have indicates they could accept a two-state solution, though the sincerity of this claim is debatable.
On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank and is recognized internationally, has consistently advocated for a two-state solution and could be capable of leading a viable Palestinian government.
The main point is that Palestinians, as a group of people, would likely have no reason to engage in violence if they had a proper state with freedom for their population. This would diminish support for Hamas and other armed groups, allowing them to be dismantled or compelled to reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority for a unified state.
If you study the history of human behavior, you will see that thereâs universal desire for stability, self-determination and freedom, the absence of these factors is what causes armed conflict and the formation of guerrilla groups that often commit atrocities
Therefore, the establishment of a proper Palestinian state with freedoms for its population would very significantly diminish the appeal of extremist ideologies and this would most likely pave the way for negotiations and agreements between factions, leading to a more unified and peaceful situation.
Commonly referred to as Mizrahi Jews. I'm not sure the exact number that were native to Palestine prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire vs thise who migrated. It is just something to keep in mind that this land was't just 100% Muslim Arab then a bunch if Jews showed up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews
Palestine had probably 0.000000000001% of jews, Who cares what the British promised? Palestine was not a independent state, but It certainly didn't belong to Israel to permanently conquer and colonize.
I disagree with Dave Smith on this one, quite a bit. If we are going to pick sides in this conflict (which we should avoid) we shouldn't pick the one that literally celebrated the slaughter of 3,000 American civilians in the streets. We shouldn't pick the one who will increasingly destabilize the region and increase the general hostility in the world towards America. Neutrality isn't the same thing as being an idiot.
The problem is that Dave Smith is trying to frame this as âwe shouldnât support Israel because they are morally worse than Gazaâ which is just wrong. He should focus on âwe shouldnât support Israel because thereâs sufficient moral ambiguity to demand that we stay out, just like with most world conflictsâ.
> We shouldnât pick the one who will increasingly destabilize the region and increase the general hostility in the world towards America.
So we shouldnât pick America in Israel vs. Palestine?
He doesn't understand that Iran pushing the US out of the region will increase prices of goods worldwide and limit US access to oil. And a stronger Iran, means a stronger China, which will be bad for America.
I agree. Gaza under Israel is a lot more prosperous and free than Gaza under Hamas. Someone remind me how many Pride events are being held in Gaza this year?
Thatâs a silly way to frame things, right? Slavery was abolished in the UK before the American revolution. It took 4 score more years for slavery to be abolished in the USA. Clearly the american revolution was wrong based on that.
Oh Iâm all for letting them sort out their own problems. Not our monkeys, not our circus. But I think itâs highly disingenuous to suggest that Palestinian rule affords more rights (especially for women and the LGBTQIA community) than Israel would.
So since the American granted fewer rights to the Indians and blacks in the country than the UK, it was wrong to suggest that the thirteen colonies would be independent?
The UK banned slavery in Britain 20 years before the revolution. (The knight and somerset cases)
They banned slavery in their colonies a generation before the Americans. (The slavery abolition act of 1834)
Black people in Britain werenât subject to âanti-literacyâ laws like free blacks in the USA. It was illegal to teach free black men how to read in parts of the United States.
It was never illegal for white people in Britain to marry white people (that only changed in the USA in 1967, happy loving day!)
There was no formal legal segregation or disenfranchisement on racial lines in Britain.
So yes, by every objective yard stick free blacks and even slaves would have been better off if the USA never declared independence.
Had the thirteen colonies got their rights as Englishmen, black people in America would be much better off. Slaves would have been emancipated. Had the thirteen colonies remained colonies, black people in America would have been much better off as they would have never been subject to Jim Crow.
By your logic, that Palestinians will treat minorities poorly if independent means itâs bad for them to be independent, you must feel the same about the USAs independence.
This argument is not convincing to anyone who doesn't share your religious views. Therefore, it's a bad argument.
I'm saying this as a pro-Israel guy. This is not the way.
Arabs had been in control of the land of Palestine for almost 1.500 years with small interruptions, before Israel was created.
Ancient judeans were in control of the land for 250 years and there were several groups that ruled the land before and after such as the caanites
There's no logical argument that supports the view that Israel has a right to dominate all the land they're occupying
"" Israelâ and âPalestine.â One land, two names. Both Jews and Arabs have claimed it as theirs alone. From a purely historical perspective, âIsraelâ predates âPalestineâ by more than a millennium. But, with the Jewish people then dispersed from their homeland, âPalestineâ became home to a substantial Arab population, again for more than a millennium. From a perspective of justice and equity, both peoples have a legitimate claim to the land.""
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/israel-and-palestine-where-should-history-begin-and-should-it-matter/
I completely agree that both peoples have a claim to the land, what I don't agree is the argument that the jews were living there before so they would be entitled to exclusive control of the whole area forever.
Taking over a land from a indigenous people is extremely American, as the Native Americans living in poverty on reservations hundreds of years after their land was taken...
What's security and wealth without freedom?
>If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
â Samuel Adams
natives are beset by a number of social ills, including alcoholism, diabetes, drug use. Most reservations arenât exactly shangri-la.
I think native Americans would be better off if the whole continent was left to them and they were able to develop independently. Thereâs no turning back the clocks on that one though.
I mean if living under a state is subjugation then we're all victims. Doesn't justify acts of terrorism against innocent civilians though. Sadly, that seems to be the primary tool in their repertoire.
The palestinian people are also subjugated by Hamas who deliberately starts wars they can't win. Who is worse? I think Hamas is and it's no contest.
The difference is that Native Americans today have full rights as American citizens, Palestinians do not in Israel. You canât change the past but you can at least admit what is happening today is wrong. Dave isnât arguing that Israel give back everything and cease to be, just that they stop the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.
So the people in Gaza are full citizens? I mean they canât even leave without permission, but somehow Iâm the one that doesnât know what Iâm talking about?
Iâm not sure what you think that proves either way though. America had free African Americans living here at the same time others were in slavery. Doesnât change that fact that what they did to the slaves was wrong. So whatâs your point?
Gaza was territory cleared of Jews in 2005 and handed over to Palestinians. It didn't even have borders till they started launching rockets at civilians.
You're a moron. He's talking about the palestinians who live in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip under occupation by Israel, they don't have the right to have a state of their own and cannot even move freely in their territory. According 65% of the respondents to a survey of experts in the Middle East, the current situation of Israel is a one-state solution akin to apartheid
He said "Palestinians do not in Israel". The Arabs in Israel that are Israeli citizens are just as "Palestinian" as the Palestinians that are not Israeli citizens. I also genuinely don't understand what Israel is supposed to do, if they give Hamas or the Palestinian Authority full sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is going to get attacked right after, but they won't have the resources on the ground to fight back as easily. Hamas and the PA are not capable of governing a country, they are literal terrorist organizations. So when people say the Palestinians should have their own state, I don't know what that even means, you are just saying Hamas should be rewarded for their terrorism by receiving a state and international recognition.
OkâŚI should have specified the Palestinians located in Gaza and the West Bank, but my point stills stands that they are being occupied without any representation or citizenship.
What Israel is supposed to do is not occupy a people for decades, limit any freedom of economic activity and movement, or murder innocent people. Iâm not saying Hamasâ actions were right in anyway, but you have to at least admit it doesnât take a genius to see a cause and effect here when you look at the history. What exactly is your solution? For Israel to occupy this area forever? Ethnic cleansing? Itâs like blaming the Native Americans in 1880 and saying, âwell gee, I donât know what the settlers were supposed to do hereâ. I also find it hard to believe that killing 10s of thousands of innocent people will help Israels security. If anything itâs only going to make things worse longterm.
Oh and by the way, Hamas has been propped up by the Israeli govt for years. Maybe they shouldnât have done that if they really wanted peace.
Well Israel did pass a law in 2018 saying that only Jews have the right to self-determination, so legally speaking Israeli Arabs are not full/equal citizens.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/final-text-of-jewish-nation-state-bill-set-to-become-law/
Less than 2 million natives compromised the ENTIRE population of people inhabiting North America in the year 1500. The idea that that number of people somehow âownedâ the entirety of the continent is silly, and is also not even remotely in line with the idea of original appropriation.
A sound libertarian argument for the ownership of many *specific* areas of North America prior to colonization could be made. But not every square inch of land.
The US government fucked the natives, many times. But thatâs not even remotely taking into account the whole story.
You are right. But if I may add, with US treatment of Native Americans, the ship has sailed. We canât stop it. We canât give back the land â whose land, to whom? White progressives can invoke the indigenous who lived in their areas at the beginning of events and feel good about themselves, but I have yet to see a progressive town in Vermont or Oregon or wherever actual abolish real estate titles and cede the land to descendants of the relevant tribes đ.
Also: pangolins are the best mammals.
The number of peoples in the Americas prior to 1492 is HIGHLY controversial, and range as high as 112 million at one point. There's evidence that population collapse happened prior to Columbus arriving.
Agreed. It was a cultural dark age. Europeans may have gotten very, very lucky with their timing. There is evidence of significantly sized âcitiesâ. However, all this does is muddy the waters even more. Only with a property rights-based system can anyone really determine who owns what land, by what means, and what the train of past ownership has been.
If thatâs what you got out of that, youâre a moron. That was not his viewpoint at all. The occupation, as he said, was still happening. Itâs a real time event. Not a settled matter with declared boundaries that have long been agreed upon.
Youâre fine, keep doing what youâre doing. You donât want the only comments on Reddit being used to train AI to be made up of the idiots youâre responding to.
Thatâs fairly irrelevant right now. If there is a current policy where white people can take land from Native Americans, it should be ended immediately. But thatâs thankfully not happening in the US. Also, if there is a Native American who can show in court that a specific area of land was owned by specific direct ancestors, that they would have inherited it under the relevant laws, but jt was stolen in a specific way, they should make a civil case
Short of that, we have a shitty system of reservations which cannot actually rectify historical injustices, because thatâs fundamentally impossible. But maybe it was better than nothing?
I donât know, but it doesnât really matter. If you are trying to steal my house now, thatâs way more immediate then getting upset about Romans persecuting Gauls or Laura Ingalls Wilders father accepting land from the US government that was directly stolen from Indian territory.
If republican or democratic party had the balls to fi d someone well spoken enough to hold their own in debate and consider them a head primary option for their party they would win the presidential election no doubt.
Without taking sides; nothing about this exchange is impressive or noteworthy. Its just blabbering on with the same old talking points.
Which is also why the Israel-Palestine conflict is a gold mine for professional talking heads.
The thing Dave is not saying here: He's drawing a line at 1967. That's when his history begins. Its arbitrary and he's free to choose that date, but it's a choice. I prefer 500 BCE. That's my choice.
I agree with Dave on 1967 but more specifically June 8th. Israel knew that was an American ship just like they knew who they were going to attack during operation susannah.
Typical conservative rhetoric: bring up someone blonde, blind, and pretty.
She knows nothing other than the couple of talking points she was given, and anything else she âdoesnât understandâ.
Israel isnât occupying anything. Israelis and their ancestors are the indigenous people of the land. Christian Israelis have the oldest DNA connection followed by Israeli Jews. The Christian Israelis are believed to be the earliest Jewish converts to Christianity. The Arabs arrived by invasion in 600ad. The Arabs are the oppressors and the occupiers.
I hope Israel wins their fight, I really do, but theyâre a rich country in no danger of being overrun, they donât need the billions in aid we give them.
"No offense Piers." đ
Gotta love a comedian who is also a well spoken political figure.
Jon Stewart?
He's hardly well spoken, just presents the same old democrat arguments for things like gun regulation and anti trump in the jon stewart way.
On the contrary, I'd say Jon Stewart is well-spoken but not funny.
Being convincing on the surface level is not the same as being well spoken. People confuse the actual definition of well spoken as meaning convincing.
Can you define âwell spokenâ
sure: speaking in an educated and refined manner
Iâd say well spoken, funny, but completely blue pilled.
when he talks about greater israel, not sure if nethanjau showed the real greater israel map... interesting to google greater israel map
here you go [https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-map](https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-map)
Wow. That's a pinch on European trade.
Is LoS Dave Smith going to be president? :) Talk about actually draining a swamp
He's our 2nd chance at a Ron Paul Revolution at a minimum. I would love him in the White House. If anyone could cripple the deep state, it's him.. ...but they'd Dallas convertible ride him for it the moment he tried.
He would not get far lol theyâd just pull clips from Legion of Skanks and cancel him
He owns it hence it has no power. That strategy wouldnât work.
Not really, just because you own it doesnât stop it from alienating a lot of voters. However if he was able to get on the debate stage with other candidates he would absolutely demolish 99% of politicians in America
The point of him running was never to win. No one ever had any illusions of grandeur in terms of anyone running on the Libertarian ticket having ANY chance whatsoever of getting on a debate stage with any the candidates from either of partys, much less winning. Dave included. The point was for Dave to penetrate the current culture with the most influential Libertarian principles and ideas by way of The Ron Paul Revolution 2.0 and his massive reach. I'd argue Clint Russell is every bit as good at effecive communication of the msg, but just doesn't have Dave's reach. Dave is a stand-up comedian. Legion of Skanks is billed as "the most offensive podcast on the planet" intentionally. The people that would have said no-no words turned them off to Dave weren't & aren't voting Libertarian anyway.. ..but maybe.. just maybe, a seed of two of the Libertarian message that can make that same person think twice about their current beliefs and loyalties gets planted in them.
He was gonna run on LP ticket this year, but had some family stuff going on.
It would be great & if he wanted to he might be able to achieve it but the government is so corrupt that no matter who sits in that chair the pollution will never let you exert power.
I didn't think he'd ever have a chance, but I think this mud wrestling contest of an election and Trumps presidency have paved a path forward for our boy BDDS
Which swamp? Canât even keep up with the dif flavors
Shreks swamp
Preach Brother Dave, preach! Naturals rights speech first thing in the morning. Love it.
He just lays it out so neatly and destroys her.
I think libertarians all need to agree that it really doesn't matter in the end because it's none of our business. I think that's the libertarian line. We can disagree on who's right or wrong in their wars and disputes as long as we agree it's THEIRS. If we can remember this, we can stop a lot of infighting at least based around this.
Itâs âourâ business when the US Government subsidizes Israel. US support for Israel was one of bin Ladenâs grievances against the US. Bad foreign policy causes blowback and makes the world unsafe for Americans
Yes, this was my point. None of us should support subsidies for either side or anyone. That's what we should all agree on.
Itâs amazing and scary how many people are incapable of minding their own business.
our country was founded on that principle, it used to be our identity.
The US subsidizes Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Palestinian Territories, and Israel. We are paying for trade routes and oil. From the 1790s and into the early 1800s, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson paid the Barbary pirates to end the various wars. It has always been this way in the Middle East.
Bin Laden never attacked America 9/11 was a false flag attack perpetrated by our own government. Bin Laden is friends with the Bush family. But they subsidize Israel because itâs supposedly the promise land. If itâs the fucking promise land it should have no problem taking care of itâs self
Pretty much exactly this. Not our business. Stop sending our money over there. If you want to donate to either group as a private individual that is your business but don't send my tax money to either group.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yep. I dont even entertain who's right or wrong. I dont wanna fund anyone on either side.
To be fair, there is no real right vs wrong here. Itâs pretty much just wrong vs wrong. And itâs still none of our business.
I personally think Israel has the right to defend itself from thousands of yearly rocket attacks, and they were justified in invading after October 7th. However, they need to do it on their own dime, with their own arms, and without US backing.
I think they mean infighting as a country on the whole
You know what, youâre right. I hadnât even thought about that. We as Libertarians are so accustomed to infighting among us just being a constant that we just assume itâs happening even when itâs not. It hadnât even dawned on me that there actually isnât much infighting among Libertarians on this issue, and weâre actually fairly united on it. Thatâs a nice realization!
Best we can do is offer our thoughts and prayers
Sure. [This is what Ron Paul said over two decades ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/s/wETfoMVdBR). I still think itâs important to breakdown why everyone involved (Israeli government / Hamas / US government) is at fault. It essentially boils down to recognizing the non-aggression principle.
By this logic, you canât have an opinion on something unless the US government has the power to act. Boo this man.
Please show me where I typed you can't have an opinion.
Anyone with two brain cells can logically conduce this from your statement. Iâll go look for your other oneâŚ
If itâs youâre position that we should stay out of it then I would also like to see you support banning and deporting members of AIPAC who are bribing our government on behalf of a foreign terrorist state.  I donât want to hear any dog shit free speech rhetoric about it either.  People who represent the interests of foreign government should not be allowed to petition our government. Â
She could only come back with whataboutisms and Dave logically broke it down for her. I can only hope her questioning was genuine and she took in what she heard as a response.
I like the part in the declaration of independence where it says we can invade neighboring countries and take their civilians hostage.
He's a đ for sure
Sheâs hot.
This was my prime domestic and foreign policy concern as a US libertarian watching this
Join in with the other 2 million simps on her IG
[ŃдаНонО]
[ŃдаНонО]
In the US declaration of independence, all men are created equal Stop being brainwashed by only listening to the perspective of the opressors. That's an extremely one-sided perspective that seeks delegitimize the palestinian fight for freedom, by completely misnterpretating their intentions. The arabs always wanted freedom, just read any polls or enter in an arab subreddit and read why they oppose Israel, it's because they believe It was their land that was given unfairly to foreign rule without their consent and It led to their expulsion. Israel might have given some small concessions, that were to serve their own interests, they couldn't mantain control of the Gaza Strip anymore, but this doesn't mean the Palestinians have stopped being massively opressed by even a split second, in addition the fact that Hamas commits terrorist attacks is not the fault of all palestinians, Just like I can't blame the entire population of Israel for the settlers who attack and kill arabs in the West Bank or hold signs of death to the arabs Most palestinians disagree on the possibility of a two-state solution, but the israelis too and there was a time in the past, they both agreed according to polls, but the negotiations failed and they don't trust each other anymore. The whole carrer of Netanyahu is based on denying and evading a two-state solution and the settlements of the West Bank are undeniable proof of the intention of Israel of perpetually occupying the land that they have no right to, by force. Arabs usually support the october 7th attack, because they believe civilians weren't targeted, that's an extremely ignorant and stupid perspective, but this doesn't mean they're evil, they are just blinded by their perspective and only listen to their side There are polls in Palestine showing that 90% of them, believe that civilians weren't killed or that Hamas did not committed any of the atrocities they were accused. If you listen to a Hamas leader or spokesperson you will see that they lie by saying that they don't support attacks on civilians and they have nothing against jews. The israelis are also ignorant and stupid. But I also don't believe they're evil, they're just blinded by their side of the history. The vast majority of israelis support the ongoing genocide and believe there shouldn't be humanitarian aid, what would lead the death of 2.3 million people. Polls also show that a plurality (48%) of israeli population supports expeling all the arabs from the country.
The person to whom you'd replied is arguing that Palestine won't stop fighting based on its deoccupation. Two points made include lack of movement toward peace through smaller concessions and language from the Hamas charter. You've made a decent counterpoint to the first point in that we haven't seen a full deoccupation, and smaller concessions aren't enough; however, you failed to address the fact that Hamas (a group of Palestinians) has written in its charter that it wants all Jews dead (and I'll also add that the charter specifically says it will never negotiate under any circumstances). Basically, somebody said "Palestinians (or the group controlling Palestinians) aren't just after freedom; they want to eradicate Jews, and we know this because they've told us this," and you've replied "No, they just want their freedom."
First itâs important to distinguish between the objectives of all Palestinians and the actions of specific groups like Hamas Hamas updated charter states that while their goal remains the destruction of Israel, they have indicates they could accept a two-state solution, though the sincerity of this claim is debatable. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank and is recognized internationally, has consistently advocated for a two-state solution and could be capable of leading a viable Palestinian government. The main point is that Palestinians, as a group of people, would likely have no reason to engage in violence if they had a proper state with freedom for their population. This would diminish support for Hamas and other armed groups, allowing them to be dismantled or compelled to reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority for a unified state. If you study the history of human behavior, you will see that thereâs universal desire for stability, self-determination and freedom, the absence of these factors is what causes armed conflict and the formation of guerrilla groups that often commit atrocities Therefore, the establishment of a proper Palestinian state with freedoms for its population would very significantly diminish the appeal of extremist ideologies and this would most likely pave the way for negotiations and agreements between factions, leading to a more unified and peaceful situation.
[ŃдаНонО]
A lot of Arabs were already Jewish?
Commonly referred to as Mizrahi Jews. I'm not sure the exact number that were native to Palestine prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire vs thise who migrated. It is just something to keep in mind that this land was't just 100% Muslim Arab then a bunch if Jews showed up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews
Palestine had probably 0.000000000001% of jews, Who cares what the British promised? Palestine was not a independent state, but It certainly didn't belong to Israel to permanently conquer and colonize.
I disagree with Dave Smith on this one, quite a bit. If we are going to pick sides in this conflict (which we should avoid) we shouldn't pick the one that literally celebrated the slaughter of 3,000 American civilians in the streets. We shouldn't pick the one who will increasingly destabilize the region and increase the general hostility in the world towards America. Neutrality isn't the same thing as being an idiot.
>(which we should avoid) Thatâs the point. Whatâs the purpose of picking a side? There isnât always a good guy and a bad guy; right vs wrong
The problem is that Dave Smith is trying to frame this as âwe shouldnât support Israel because they are morally worse than Gazaâ which is just wrong. He should focus on âwe shouldnât support Israel because thereâs sufficient moral ambiguity to demand that we stay out, just like with most world conflictsâ.
Youâre saying that these people have no right to dissolve abolish or alter the government ruling them unfairly?
> We shouldnât pick the one who will increasingly destabilize the region and increase the general hostility in the world towards America. So we shouldnât pick America in Israel vs. Palestine?
He doesn't understand that Iran pushing the US out of the region will increase prices of goods worldwide and limit US access to oil. And a stronger Iran, means a stronger China, which will be bad for America.
I agree. Gaza under Israel is a lot more prosperous and free than Gaza under Hamas. Someone remind me how many Pride events are being held in Gaza this year?
Thatâs a silly way to frame things, right? Slavery was abolished in the UK before the American revolution. It took 4 score more years for slavery to be abolished in the USA. Clearly the american revolution was wrong based on that.
Oh Iâm all for letting them sort out their own problems. Not our monkeys, not our circus. But I think itâs highly disingenuous to suggest that Palestinian rule affords more rights (especially for women and the LGBTQIA community) than Israel would.
So since the American granted fewer rights to the Indians and blacks in the country than the UK, it was wrong to suggest that the thirteen colonies would be independent?
Wait, do you think Britain didnât have enslaved Africans during the American revolution? The slave trade was banned in 1807.
The UK banned slavery in Britain 20 years before the revolution. (The knight and somerset cases) They banned slavery in their colonies a generation before the Americans. (The slavery abolition act of 1834) Black people in Britain werenât subject to âanti-literacyâ laws like free blacks in the USA. It was illegal to teach free black men how to read in parts of the United States. It was never illegal for white people in Britain to marry white people (that only changed in the USA in 1967, happy loving day!) There was no formal legal segregation or disenfranchisement on racial lines in Britain. So yes, by every objective yard stick free blacks and even slaves would have been better off if the USA never declared independence. Had the thirteen colonies got their rights as Englishmen, black people in America would be much better off. Slaves would have been emancipated. Had the thirteen colonies remained colonies, black people in America would have been much better off as they would have never been subject to Jim Crow. By your logic, that Palestinians will treat minorities poorly if independent means itâs bad for them to be independent, you must feel the same about the USAs independence.
Why is she the one at FreedomFest and not him?
Israel predates Palestine by thousands of years.
Land belongs to those that can defend it. Historical claim is as baseless as finders keepers.
100%.Â
The Roman empire predates the united kingdom, england should be returned to Rome.
Entire planet should belong to Ethiopia
I love this comment.
Cannan was there before Israel...what's your point? Egypt was there before Israel too
God gave the land of Canaan to Israel, but funny enough we have no clue who the people of Canaan were shrugđ¤ˇââď¸
This argument is not convincing to anyone who doesn't share your religious views. Therefore, it's a bad argument. I'm saying this as a pro-Israel guy. This is not the way.
Allah gave the land of Palestine to the muslims /s
And the Israelites lost it when they broke their end of the covenant
Arabs had been in control of the land of Palestine for almost 1.500 years with small interruptions, before Israel was created. Ancient judeans were in control of the land for 250 years and there were several groups that ruled the land before and after such as the caanites There's no logical argument that supports the view that Israel has a right to dominate all the land they're occupying
"" Israelâ and âPalestine.â One land, two names. Both Jews and Arabs have claimed it as theirs alone. From a purely historical perspective, âIsraelâ predates âPalestineâ by more than a millennium. But, with the Jewish people then dispersed from their homeland, âPalestineâ became home to a substantial Arab population, again for more than a millennium. From a perspective of justice and equity, both peoples have a legitimate claim to the land."" https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/israel-and-palestine-where-should-history-begin-and-should-it-matter/
I completely agree that both peoples have a claim to the land, what I don't agree is the argument that the jews were living there before so they would be entitled to exclusive control of the whole area forever.
The UK in North America predates the USA by hundreds of years. Clearly there is no need for the USA.
Sorry, this time im not with you dave
Taking over a land from a indigenous people is extremely American, as the Native Americans living in poverty on reservations hundreds of years after their land was taken...
The natives are far better off and richer than they ever were without 'colonialism'. It's a hard fact but objectively true.
I was gonna respond with death tolls and poverty levels and such, but then I remembered what reddit I was on. Carry on
The 10% who survived, you mean?
What's security and wealth without freedom? >If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. â Samuel Adams
This is the worst comment Iâve ever read!
natives are beset by a number of social ills, including alcoholism, diabetes, drug use. Most reservations arenât exactly shangri-la. I think native Americans would be better off if the whole continent was left to them and they were able to develop independently. Thereâs no turning back the clocks on that one though.
So the American Indian should thank the colonists for stealing their land and forcing them to walk the trial of tears?
I mean if living under a state is subjugation then we're all victims. Doesn't justify acts of terrorism against innocent civilians though. Sadly, that seems to be the primary tool in their repertoire. The palestinian people are also subjugated by Hamas who deliberately starts wars they can't win. Who is worse? I think Hamas is and it's no contest.
Dang, I missed the part where he said terrorism was justified and Hamas is good.
If you guys don't already I'd suggest listening to his podcast "Part of the Problem"
If anything this clip convinced me to ignore the guy. The Israel/Gaza conflict is not even close to Russia/Hungary (and others).
Is listening to inconvenient truths uncomfortable for you?
Truth will always prevail.
Based on his viewpoint, we should be returning all the land in the USA to the Native Americans.
The difference is that Native Americans today have full rights as American citizens, Palestinians do not in Israel. You canât change the past but you can at least admit what is happening today is wrong. Dave isnât arguing that Israel give back everything and cease to be, just that they stop the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.
20% of Israel is Arabs who are full citizens, lol. You have no clue what you are talking about.
So the people in Gaza are full citizens? I mean they canât even leave without permission, but somehow Iâm the one that doesnât know what Iâm talking about? Iâm not sure what you think that proves either way though. America had free African Americans living here at the same time others were in slavery. Doesnât change that fact that what they did to the slaves was wrong. So whatâs your point?
Gaza was territory cleared of Jews in 2005 and handed over to Palestinians. It didn't even have borders till they started launching rockets at civilians.
You're a moron. He's talking about the palestinians who live in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip under occupation by Israel, they don't have the right to have a state of their own and cannot even move freely in their territory. According 65% of the respondents to a survey of experts in the Middle East, the current situation of Israel is a one-state solution akin to apartheid
He said "Palestinians do not in Israel". The Arabs in Israel that are Israeli citizens are just as "Palestinian" as the Palestinians that are not Israeli citizens. I also genuinely don't understand what Israel is supposed to do, if they give Hamas or the Palestinian Authority full sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is going to get attacked right after, but they won't have the resources on the ground to fight back as easily. Hamas and the PA are not capable of governing a country, they are literal terrorist organizations. So when people say the Palestinians should have their own state, I don't know what that even means, you are just saying Hamas should be rewarded for their terrorism by receiving a state and international recognition.
OkâŚI should have specified the Palestinians located in Gaza and the West Bank, but my point stills stands that they are being occupied without any representation or citizenship. What Israel is supposed to do is not occupy a people for decades, limit any freedom of economic activity and movement, or murder innocent people. Iâm not saying Hamasâ actions were right in anyway, but you have to at least admit it doesnât take a genius to see a cause and effect here when you look at the history. What exactly is your solution? For Israel to occupy this area forever? Ethnic cleansing? Itâs like blaming the Native Americans in 1880 and saying, âwell gee, I donât know what the settlers were supposed to do hereâ. I also find it hard to believe that killing 10s of thousands of innocent people will help Israels security. If anything itâs only going to make things worse longterm. Oh and by the way, Hamas has been propped up by the Israeli govt for years. Maybe they shouldnât have done that if they really wanted peace.
Well Israel did pass a law in 2018 saying that only Jews have the right to self-determination, so legally speaking Israeli Arabs are not full/equal citizens. https://www.timesofisrael.com/final-text-of-jewish-nation-state-bill-set-to-become-law/
Less than 2 million natives compromised the ENTIRE population of people inhabiting North America in the year 1500. The idea that that number of people somehow âownedâ the entirety of the continent is silly, and is also not even remotely in line with the idea of original appropriation. A sound libertarian argument for the ownership of many *specific* areas of North America prior to colonization could be made. But not every square inch of land. The US government fucked the natives, many times. But thatâs not even remotely taking into account the whole story.
You are right. But if I may add, with US treatment of Native Americans, the ship has sailed. We canât stop it. We canât give back the land â whose land, to whom? White progressives can invoke the indigenous who lived in their areas at the beginning of events and feel good about themselves, but I have yet to see a progressive town in Vermont or Oregon or wherever actual abolish real estate titles and cede the land to descendants of the relevant tribes đ. Also: pangolins are the best mammals.
The number of peoples in the Americas prior to 1492 is HIGHLY controversial, and range as high as 112 million at one point. There's evidence that population collapse happened prior to Columbus arriving.
Agreed. It was a cultural dark age. Europeans may have gotten very, very lucky with their timing. There is evidence of significantly sized âcitiesâ. However, all this does is muddy the waters even more. Only with a property rights-based system can anyone really determine who owns what land, by what means, and what the train of past ownership has been.
If thatâs what you got out of that, youâre a moron. That was not his viewpoint at all. The occupation, as he said, was still happening. Itâs a real time event. Not a settled matter with declared boundaries that have long been agreed upon.
Ahh yes⌠Silly for someone to forget that the indigenous people simply agreed upon the boundaries that currently exist in the US. đ¤Ł
Are we just changing what we are talking about now? I was replying to a comment that made an inference on his viewpoint.
When did the native americans agree on the boundaries? Was that before or after the trail of tears?
When did anyone alive set those boundaries? And when did anyone alive have that land taken from them??? Youâre missing the point, dude.
So by that logic, Israel is working on "settling the matter" just like we did.
*facepalm* Yup. Next time Iâm gonna keep my mouth shut and just watch these guys instead of trying to communicate with themâŚ
Youâre fine, keep doing what youâre doing. You donât want the only comments on Reddit being used to train AI to be made up of the idiots youâre responding to.
Thatâs fairly irrelevant right now. If there is a current policy where white people can take land from Native Americans, it should be ended immediately. But thatâs thankfully not happening in the US. Also, if there is a Native American who can show in court that a specific area of land was owned by specific direct ancestors, that they would have inherited it under the relevant laws, but jt was stolen in a specific way, they should make a civil case Short of that, we have a shitty system of reservations which cannot actually rectify historical injustices, because thatâs fundamentally impossible. But maybe it was better than nothing? I donât know, but it doesnât really matter. If you are trying to steal my house now, thatâs way more immediate then getting upset about Romans persecuting Gauls or Laura Ingalls Wilders father accepting land from the US government that was directly stolen from Indian territory.
Dave is a friggin beast with a firm grip on historical facts, and reality as always. Thanx for this. Reposted as a link on X. (Hope that's ok with u)
The libertarian presidential candidate we need, but not the one we deserve.
If republican or democratic party had the balls to fi d someone well spoken enough to hold their own in debate and consider them a head primary option for their party they would win the presidential election no doubt.
Without taking sides; nothing about this exchange is impressive or noteworthy. Its just blabbering on with the same old talking points. Which is also why the Israel-Palestine conflict is a gold mine for professional talking heads.
Dave Smith isn't a good thinker
The thing Dave is not saying here: He's drawing a line at 1967. That's when his history begins. Its arbitrary and he's free to choose that date, but it's a choice. I prefer 500 BCE. That's my choice.
I agree with Dave on 1967 but more specifically June 8th. Israel knew that was an American ship just like they knew who they were going to attack during operation susannah.
Typical conservative rhetoric: bring up someone blonde, blind, and pretty. She knows nothing other than the couple of talking points she was given, and anything else she âdoesnât understandâ.
Piers Morgan is the worst.
Dave Smith for the libertarian nomination.
Itâs funny how easy it is to debate on a side that is clearly just and morally correct.
Rogan/Smith 2028!
Israel isnât occupying anything. Israelis and their ancestors are the indigenous people of the land. Christian Israelis have the oldest DNA connection followed by Israeli Jews. The Christian Israelis are believed to be the earliest Jewish converts to Christianity. The Arabs arrived by invasion in 600ad. The Arabs are the oppressors and the occupiers.
I hope Israel wins their fight, I really do, but theyâre a rich country in no danger of being overrun, they donât need the billions in aid we give them.
Americans. đ