Yes but they should be punished for wasting government funds at that point. Low level government officials don't have the authority to sanction other nations. They go for what is best for the people they are responsible for. The hospital administrator has a duty to get the best deal for the hospital. But he should still be free in his personal life to be publicly against Israel.
And who is stopping people from being against Israel in private life? There is a reason why the law we are discussing is called "Anti BDS laws" and are relevant to certain kinds of organizations, not private persons.
So you are just badly informed about a point you brought up, or alternatively are trying to misinform me about it, while i did my research and know the situation in question properly.
The "banning criticism of Israel" laws you mentioned are aimed at organizations, like, say, publicly owned/funded colleges, who were most notably targeted by those laws.
Yes the Chicoms suck. But this has nothing to do with the Chicoms.
The British would have acted the same even if the Chinese were not communists. If it was a new Chinese emprie with a new dynasty, or a Republic. They would still be assholes. Stop changing the topic and just deal with the issue presented.
Sorry, i do not trust your alt-history third eye. I trust mine, and it says you are wrong.
So you are going to be space Iran? I hope this means you won't be bitching about Iran in the future.
Lemme add to my notes that your sarcasm detector is as broken as your alt-history third eye.
I don't think what you call space Iran would be the same thing i would call that.
Also FYI there are no xenos in the fight here the Indians are humans. Also no answer the what if. The what if shows if you actually believe what you are arguing, or if you are just in support of what is good for "western interests" at the moment.
Circumstances can change perspectives, and this is a truly grand change of perspective, with fucking alien empires interfering in the affairs of us humans, even if through proxies.
Your what-if is shit because it adds twists and surprises that do not apply to real life situations, definitely not this one, where the defeated group gets split in half, one half disappears for hundreds of years, unheard of by their kin back home or their enemies alike, gets ridiculously OP in the process, and returns. In real life, such breaks of contact continuity are practically unheard of, and if they were, it would be damn material to any consideration of land sovereignty.
It's not like Arabs forgot that all the Jews outside of Middle East exist or could possibly want their homeland back. It was just that they though they were hot shit (and back then they had some of a point) and were too strong for this to happen, then shit happened, then they got their asses kicked massively by western empires, who then ruled them and the Jews, and then on account of own internal politics more or less granted them independence, which they then used to pick fights with Israel that was also granted independence by the above. Of course the customs of handling such disputes do not apply well to your what-if.
As i said, we do not have customs designed to handle interstellar foreign policy and its implications, for obvious reasons.
Fuck, we even have special law of the sea to deal with some issues very differently than any "law of the land" would, and parts of ethno-tribal groups disappearing off-planet for centuries is way more of an out of context problem for law and customs than anything going on the sea.
The same applies to Native Americans, they aren't completely disappeared and did not forget their homeland. Realistically the Jews for hundreds of years were a tiny minority it is extremely unlikely they would get their nation back.
But they were still there, with their own relations with Arabs and with other powers.
With Native Americans, they still are in their homelands, and have their own arrangements with the rest of Americans (importantly, on tribe by tribe basis, rather than as general group, which is just a leftist construct), which goes into another aspect of this, foreign relations between civilizations and stone age hunter gatherers in my opinion can't be expected to work exactly the same as between near-peer civilizations, never did, and only ridiculous people suggest they should.
Yes, but only because your accusation was rock bottom. You said that Muslims would genocide all the Jews. I don't need to show Jews being treated like kings and given blowjobs by supermodels to prove you wrong. Simply show that Jews were not exterminated.
Sorry but no one cares about your personal insistence on using the most strict theoretical (rather than the legal) definition of genocide. By that logic Hitler didn't want to genocide Slavs, because he just wanted to get rid of most of them and keep some as slaves. Such minor differences are not really that important to this discussion.
Israel has also been a pain in the ass to Europe.
With what? Minor first world problem scandals? Arab butthurt?
How many invasions of Europe did Israel do, how many territories it occupied for how many centuries. Have some fucking sense of scale.
I don't think you know anything about Judaism or Islam. Because yes at best they are equally different. But you could argue that Muslims are at least closer since they respect Jesus.
You are right that i care little about the theological differences between them, and care far more about the presented cultural and political differences between them.
Yes to a point, because diffrent religions give diffrent values. Religion is what tells you that rape, murder, and theft are wrong and should not be done even if you can get away with it. When you have no religion you have LGBT groomers, why oppose that, why should the groomers not do what feels good to them if they can get away with it?
No, religion is a part of culture (bigger in some cultures, proportionally lesser in others, like currently ours), which is what tells you what is right and wrong, so i have to disagree here vehemently, you are wrong and letting your personal preference for how things should be (which btw i have as low opinion of as you probably have of my worldview) blind you to how things are as-is.
Otherwise you would not get lesbian bishops blessing gay marriages in a parody of both Christianity and leftism.
Religion is not some magic wall to keep leftism away, for it has proven many times that if the price of getting its way is to infiltrate and subvert religious organizations, it is very willing and able to do exactly that.
Not alt hist. It's real history. Kinda embarrasing you don't know about English history.
I know you are not a fan of English geopolitics, and i see that here.
The Ottomans were the sick man starting in the 1700's From the 1400's to 1600's they were powerful. Thats at least 200 years before they degraded.
Yup. And how does that counter my point at all? They were "the sick man of Europe" since 1700's, which directly contributed to their downfall and falling under control of the western colonial powers in the first place (stable and powerful states generally don't do that), rather than from modern era "western meddling", utterly crushing this stupid leftist theory you were parroting here.
Or are you trying to say that western colonial powers did a terrible thing to all Arabs by granting them independence without making the Ottoman Empire great and stable again first, as hilariously stupid thing for them to do it would be?
You harp on about liberation theology alot but I'm not convinced it's common.
It's irrelevant to my argument whether 5 million or 200 million of people subscribe to it. It exists, and on a major scale enough to be considered a political ideology.
And you keep it very vague so that any kind of help towards the poor you can just say is muh liberation theology. Like I can point to protestants having heresy by denying scripture and tradition, and accepting gays, and women pastors, and denying miracles like Christ's ressurection.
I'm not trying to simp for protestants here either, they are more compartmentalized than the major more united branches of Christianity, some protestant branches got it worse, some less, and due to smaller institutional momentum parts can be taken over much faster, but the reaction to it can also be faster.
All you have is some nebulous communist plot to infilitrate the Church. I'm not saying it's not true as you can see with the current pope but can you define it or show that there is a large group that is actively communists, and not merely supporting the poor and oppressed.
Bingo, it is an old and time honored tactic of communists to hide their quest for power, overt or, especially when they are weak enough that it needs to be covert, behind "supporting the poor and oppressed", only slowly shifting the definitions of "oppression" and "supporting" and "poor" as tactically suitable at the moment, in the final stage arriving at sending money and weapons to communist militants oppressed by having a non-communist government. If you are willing to take this cover at face value, oh well, i think Lenin had a term for people like you.
Is the number of infiltrators large? Well, you can see their influence, so it's large enough to matter, besides that, it of course depends on your definition of large group.