Ignoring the false statements you are making. If you want the world to support you, don't commit acts of terror on civilians.
newDayRocks
joined 2 years ago
This should never be a "benefit" nor is it a "benefit" to any other group of people.
Then don't harbor terrorists. It obviously wasn't a "benefit" to the Israelis who were murdered now was it?
If they actually cared about that? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds to me like you are making shitty generalizations about Palestinians.
If Hamas cared about civilian casualties, they would never have kidnapped and executed civilians. If they cared about civilian casualties, they would negotiate their surrender.
If you're trying to spotlight Israel's treatment of Palestinians and hoping to garner sympathy, you're not going to have much success when the current world event topic is "Palestinians (Hamas) murdered and taken hostage innocent Israeli civilians."
In your example above, Israel takes all while Palestinians just get "prisoners" back (prisoners that are not really being tried for anything, a literal war crime, so for all intents and purposes they are not detained under any reasonable law and they don't have the most basic of rights)... and Palestine gets nothing.
Palestine also get the benefit of not having their cities ravaged while Israel troops hunt down enemy combatants. They get to keep some semblance of an autonomous nation. They also minimize civilian casualties in their end, if they actually cared about that.
Seems to me like maybe Israel should negotiate with terrorists if it means less dead civilians. But Israel doesn't care about that. And this is why we are here today.
It's very hard to make the argument that Israel should care about less dead civilians when the other side specifically targets civilians. I'm not sure why you keep expecting Israel to negotiate with restraint when they have no incentive to negotiate at all.
What will happen if Israel does not come to the table? Hamas will kill innocent people? And if Israel negotiates and comes to peace with Hamas, the killing will stop? History shows otherwise.
And since that killing innocent part already happens, there's nothing left to bargain for is there?
I also take issue with the fact that bringing accountability to Hamas for what happened is considered one sided negotiations for Israel. How is justice for a terrorist act considered a total victory?
I didn't suggest any plan leading to a joint county solution.
You know what would not even remotely lead to such a solution? Kidnapping and murdering civilians.
Just so we're clear, everyone loses here. But Israel is not going to negotiate with terrorists, nor should they.
Well since Hamas has already executed civilians, and Israel has both the military advantage and support of world leaders, they are not exactly negotiating from a position of strength.
You know what. Sure. I think Israel will go for this.
Release of all illegally detained Palestinians.
In return, Israel gets
- safe return of all hostages taken
- complete surrender of all Hamas leadership
- complete surrender and custody of all Palestinian combatants
- including anyone who conspired or otherwise assisted in the recent act of terrorism
How do you negotiate with someone that just kidnapped and executed or planning to execute hundreds of civilians?
What do you ask for here? And what do you give up?
But the leadership is put in place by the rank and file, with the assumption that they are negotiating on their behalf. If leadership accepts it is very likely everyone goes with it.
The article is confusing but it sounds like the union wants both C and G at the table, but C and G both agree that C should be the employer and G doesn't need to join the talks. So C is saying, if you really want G to join, you'll have to wait until the appeals are finished.
I'm guessing the union doesn't want to negotiate with C, have C go to G with the terms and G refuse and just causing endless delays in a game of telephone bargaining.
It is not tricky at all. Again the commuting cost is a solved issue and not even the one discussed in the article.
No one pays you by the hour to commute to work. This is not a thing.
Paying for commute expense is already a solved problem.
Some examples, a fixed amount based on data provided every month for commute. (200 dollars a month or whatever)
Or if a company wants to be both stingy and generous at the same time, make you expense your gas or public transportation every month up to a certain limit.
It doesn't matter if you move to a different part of town. The cost is negligible to a business.
The world will continue to side with the group that isn't hunting down innocent people in their homes and at festivals.