well if thats the practice you find problematic, why not tax that
how would fluctuation in stock prices be handled?
if stocks go down , do you get a refund ?
this seems like a paperwork and fraud riddled method to achive a very minor impact on very few people who could be taxed directly when they access actual cash
Newly independent states electing their resistance movement to government is quite common actually and seldomly a major issue (relatively to pre-independence). In recent history we had FLN in Algeria and ANC in South Africa. In Northern Ireland Sinn Féin just got elected to government without issues, and they are likely to win a major electoral victories in the Republic of Ireland as well, nobody is worried about that.
An independent Palestine will likely have democratic institutions which protects tyrannical movements from misusing their powers. Most resistance movements obey these structures as long as they are fair.
Now if Israel continues their interference (which is very likely) we may expect violence to continue regardless of how the Palestinian government is composed. This happened after Irish independence (which saw British interference in Norther Ireland) despite Sinn Féin not entering government.
i dont think Sinn Fein had quite as radical a worldview tbh
Also,unlike Hamas, Sinn Fein never had the goal of taking over UK or that of establishing a global Khalifate, as Hamas and their Muslim Brotherhood peers do
I’m not sure neither Hamas nor the Muslim Brotherhood want to establish an global Caliphate. Both organizations are explicitly anti-imperialist. I think you are putting them in the same boat as another organization who is explicitly fascist that has this goal, and I suspect many people put them in the same boat for the only reason that they share a religion or ethnicity.
Sinn Féin wanted (and still want) to take over the whole island of Ireland, including Protestant majority areas in Northern Ireland. IRA—Shin Féin’s armed wing—went to civil war because they explicitly didn’t want a two state solution. IRA did numerous terrorist attacks even in England. I’m sure many Protestants in Northern Ireland were also afraid of loosing their state (or country rather), and when they got to keep their country, they promptly used it to oppress Catholics for another 75 years, or until the Good Friday Agreement gave Catholics equal rights. Sinn Féin ultimately cited with the Good Friday Agreement even though it kept the partition. What Sinn Féin ultimately settled for was equal rights. In Palestine, this would translate to the right of return and political and civil rights for Palestinians in Israel.
> so what happens when Palestinians inevitably elect Hamas representatives to parliament and /or presidency ?
They probably will (though Palestine's existing ICC membership and the top leadership of Hamas already having ICC warrants being sought and the ICC investigation continuing would likely have a substantial impact on which Hamas voices even have that opportunity, which eventuality, as much as the potential to embarrass Israel [I don't think they expect any Israeli target to actually see justice] was quite likely a factor in the more moderate Fatah leadership of Palestine joining the ICC and actively seeking their investigations of international crimes in Palestine in the first place.)
But since independence will have been established, they'll have to deliver on boring day to day stuff, without constant Israeli abuses like the cross-border sniping and the vetoing of all-Palestine elections that would include places currently administered by Israeli occupation authorities, etc., etc., etc.
New states formed by regional/ethnic separatist/independence movements often elect the political wing(s) of the group(s) that fought the prior government/occupier if independence is acheived after substantial armed struggle. This is usually far less of a problem than in actually revolutionary regimes that overthrow amd replace a central government, because there is usually less ongoing struggle against those invested in the old regime to justify post-victory war government, providing a pretext for repression and deprioritization of economic progress and QoL improvements for the citizenry.
I raise North Korea as a counterexample. You can apparently be an independent country, totally fail to deliver on the boring stuff, have your people starving for multiple periods, and still blame it all on "them" for at least 70 years.
I also question whether Hamas would recognize some other party winning the West Bank, or accept another party's authority over Gaza, so it might have to be a three state solution, not two state.
And I'm not optimistic that, faced with trying to govern Gaza, Hamas would turn the "wipe Israel off the map" parts of their charter into "eh, that's just talk from the old days".
Worse: Could Israel trust that Hamas would do that? After October 7?
So I think that you are being more optimistic than data warrants.
North Korea is not the result of a country electing the leadership of an independence movement after an armed struggle.
It would also be very bad if. say, an outside power occupied and imposed a totalitarian regime on all or part of Palestine, and continued supporting it for decades.
North Korea is a good counterexample, but it is hardly a relevant comparison (nor is it realistic) to Hamas. The Workers’ Party of Korea was funded after liberation from the Japanese Empire. Though it included many members of the resistance fighters (notably Kim Il Sung) the movement it self was not a direct continuation of the pre-independence resistant movements.
World War 2 is also a weird time in history to gain independence as external forces (particularly the Soviet Union and Western Allies) played a large part of the resistance. If you compare instead with Vietnam, which also was liberated from the Japanese Empire, but was promptly re-colonized by the French, where the same liberation movement that fought the Empire, also fought and won the French, and became the legitimate government of first North Vietnam and finally all of Vietnam. The Communist Party turned out to be a much more functioning government than the South Vietnam Government which had a series of Monarchs, military dictators, western imposed dictators, etc.
Finally I’d like to turn to FLN which is probably the most relevant comparison. FLN consolidated Algeria as a one party state for the first decades after independence, and it took a whole other rebellion for democratic reforms. But the terrorist activities of FLN (which were much more numerous and destructive than Hamas’) almost completely stopped (I don’t remember any post-independence terrorist activities of FLN actually).
I actually think that Hamas’ rule would be far more democratic than FLN’s. Hamas has a wide support among the people in Palestine, and they would easily win a fair and free election. If they would engage in undemocratic activities, it would cost them more then they could gain (granting international recognition [which honestly is unlikely]). All of this would be void though if Israel would continue interfering with an independent Palestine.
> in each Arab household tonight they are discussing how well killing Jews
You can't post dehumanizing generalizations about entire populations on HN, regardless of who you're slurring. Since we've already asked you to stop posting this sort of hellish flamewar comment to Hacker News (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40418627) and you've been doing it repeatedly since then, I've banned the account.
Since this is the point at which we usually get accused of taking a side in the underlying conflict, I suppose I'll point out that (1) these rules apply regardless of which side you're on, and how right you are or feel you are; (2) we've banned accounts for similarly abusive posts coming from the opposite side of the conflict; and (3) there are many other accounts on HN arguing for the same side of the conflict as you, and that's of course fine (as long as they stay within the site guidelines).
I was talking about a pattern of resistance movement becoming legitimate and functioning governments after independence. And how usually their previous atrocities stop as soon as their peoples are free from their former oppressors.
I don’t know why you are talking about this here as a reply. It sounds like you are trying to flamebait me.
> I actually think that Hamas’ rule would be far more democratic than FLN’s. Hamas has a wide support among the people in Palestine, and they would easily win a fair and free election. If they would engage in undemocratic activities, it would cost them more then they could gain (granting international recognition [which honestly is unlikely]). All of this would be void though if Israel would continue interfering with an independent Palestine.
I was responding to this. Its factually untrue as Hamas did win a free and fair election in Gaza (an independent state) and immediately killed all it's political enemies often in gruesome and shocking ways, which is pretty undemocratic. Since their 2005 win, they haven't held an election. They continue to kill and torture political dissidents, or anyone who does something they don't like, without any sort of trial or criminal proceeding. They apparently had a very widespread, mature secret police network that spied on their citizens. Israel only started their blockade 2 years after Hamas won their election when Hamas began attacking Israeli civilians and using Gaza as a base for terror.
There are countless examples of neighboring states that have a huge power imbalance that maintain their democracy (or some semblance thereof) even in the face of alleged aggression from the more powerful entity, which is why I said it's shocking to hear you blame Israel which isn't nearly as aggressive as China is to Taiwan, or Russia to it's neighbors, or the UK was to Ireland, etc. Look at Cuba and the US. Aggressively targeting civilians with suicide bombs, unguided rockets, mortars, etc isn't inevitable when you have a grievance with your neighbor, you can take the advice of pacifists everywhere that "The best revenge is living well". Look no further than Taiwain, Pakistan, various SA countries and the US, etc.
Basically, it's dishonest to claim that Hamas would magically become a better political entity if they were given control of the pre-war-1967 borders. They've shown and said time and again, their only aspiration is the murder of all Jews (everywhere) and control of all of the entire region from the river to the sea. That isn't controversial or flamebait, it's literally what they've said many times. I don't recall the Vietcong calling for the murder of all south Vietnamese citizenry. Nor did the FLN call for a global campaign of murder of all French people. Neither NV, nor the FLN stated that they didn't see their own citizens as worthy of protection. Hamas has called for both a global campaign of terror against Jews everywhere and has stated that the safety of the Gazan citizenry is the responsibility of the UN and not Hamas.
I think it's disingenuous to call someone flamebait for directly responding to your concluding paragraph, but then I looked at the username and realized who I was dealing with.
To respond to everything else you've said in the previous comment: Vietnam is a pretty terrible place to live if you disagree with their government, not sure why you're using it as an example. FLN too was pretty terrible to anyone who disagreed politically with the ruling party. Obviously the ruling government isn't gonna call it's own actions terrorism, but it absolutely extrajudicially attacked and killed people who it found disagreeable. Under your current definition, Hamas is in fact just as functional a government over Gaza as the FLN and Vietnam were/are over their people. To put it another way there's a giant chasm between real functioning government and despotic regime that gives the veneer of legitimacy. The Vietcong were functionally the same before an after their rise to power, so too, the FLN, they just used different labels.
That's not something to aspire to.
This will be my last communique on this thread with you, as usual you've spread a lot of misinformation with impunity, and I don't like to engage with people who don't start from a place of honesty. I wouldn't have responded to the first one either if I had seen who I was talking with.
I had the same comment in a previous HN thread and somebody responded noting something along the lines of, "I remember seeing free newspapers and magazines everywhere, especially in coffee shops." There are a few nits to pick about that but it stands that it was possible to get free news back in the day. If we did put subscriptions on most news then would places like coffee shops be able to offer those sources for free, maybe tied in with their wifi?
Also, and I hate to say this because nobody likes this model, but what if news took on a cable TV model where you pay $20/month and subscribe to a few different pubs, maybe even allowing you to make your own bundles? What if it was a box we could tick on our internet bill?
btw I subscribe to a few local news sites and the horrible thing is that it's becoming a slippery slope. Now even though I only hit science.org once in awhile for instance it's like, guhhhh I feel guilty for blocking all their trackers and ads, and I should pay something.
All the subscriptions I've seen deeply outweigh the cost of delivering the content to me. The Guardian had an interesting CTA where they asked me to subscribe for $13/month because I've read 20 articles this year. That worked out to about $1 per minute of reading time, which doesn't reflect the value of their work (and I think their work is pretty good!). If they had more subscribers would they charge less? And why does serving electronic content now cost so much more than a paper version?
> Also, and I hate to say this because nobody likes this model, but what if news took on a cable TV model where you pay $20/month and subscribe to a few different pubs, maybe even allowing you to make your own bundles?
You're describing the New York Times subscription model, fwiw.
As in: when I subscribe to the NYTimes Games app I also get a newspaper? (kidding!) When I look at their subscription page it just shows the paper and a few other bespoke properties like Wirecutter. (https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/all-access)
You'll have to scroll down (and visit each individual page) to get to the separate subscription plans, because dark patterns, but it is still available as an option.
This is a UN security council resolution. The enforcement mechanism is [kinda; see child] implied. The resolutions them selves hardly ever specify how enforcement works. It is assumed that they are obeyed, and then other member states will decide punitive measures when non-compliance is evident. This usually means sanctions, breaking of diplomatic ties, etc. and—in the case of Israel—probably arms embargo.
> If hamas refuse to release all hostages, what is supposed to happen?
That is not really the most important question right now. Hamas has shown compliance with previous hostage release plans. If there is a ceasefire, hostages will probably be released (at least the civilian ones).
Now the resolution calls for all hostages to be released unconditionally. I don’t think anybody is under the illusion that Hamas will comply with that. Instead what most organizations are hoping for is hostage negotiations, where the military hostages will be released in exchange for Palestinians illegally detained in Israeli prisons. In any other context this would be called a prisoner swap.
That said, the main issue is Israeli compliance, if there is no ceasefire, no hostages will be released. Not only is it against Hamas’s interest to release the hostages without a ceasefire, but it is also a logistical nightmare, and it puts the lives of the hostages in even further danger. This is what most states and organizations are worried about. And Israel is giving people ample justification for those worries.
> This is a UN security council resolution. The enforcement mechanism is implied.
No, it is not (unless by the “enforcement mechanism” that “is implied” you mean “returning to the council to debate a subsequent resolution on enforcement”.) UN Security Council resolutions that want, or even permit, enforcement beyond countries acting as they would be legally empowered under international law without a resolution explicitly authorize nations to enforce it by either particular means or with language like “by all necessary means”.
See, e.g.. SC Res 678 (1990), in relevant part:
---
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore International peace and security in the area;
---
EDIT: But, as that resolution and its reference to 660 illustrates, it is common practice to have a pure demand resolution followed by a demand-with-enforcement resolution; its far less common to jump straight to demand-with-enforcement, IIRC. So, this isn't inconsistent with the pass to a materially enforced resolution, but its still in the pure demand phase.
OTOH, its pretty hard to see enforcement against either side not getting vetoed by each sides P5 supporters, and it doesn't look like either side is inclined to comply voluntarily.
Yeah, that is kind of what I meant. But also that individual UN members often issue punitive measures individually, which is looks to the language of the reaction to this one. There is a loud talk e.g. among EU countries—as well as EU it self—about the importance of enforcing this particular resolution. The way I understand it is basically telling Israel to obey or else.
Why else would XVII aristocracy have been so concerned with their family lines?
(as late as the XX, we can find fictional characters referring to Burke's Peerage* as "the stud book". I rather doubt that usage arises just because both were to use abbreviations and black type.)
* back in print! I guess the XXI is bound and determined, not only to repeat the mistakes of the XX, but also those of the XIX.
Most noble marriages in Europe were done for political reasons. Why marry for love (or genetic traits) when you can marry to inherit the Duchess of Burgundy's land?
Exactly: they thought that holding land over several generations was indicative of good "blood" (what we would call genetic traits).
Just because they turned out to be in error about the value of their selections doesn't mean they hadn't been selectively breeding.
(an example in cattle: we had local bulls who had been bred for conformation for a long time, and luckily the breeders in the US instead were breeding for "liters of milk produced by the bulls' daughters", so now many [most?] locals inseminate with straws from the US lines)
> Exactly: they thought that holding land over several generations was indicative of good "blood" (what we would call genetic traits).
While, yes, “good blood” was the social narrative, I think it was a lot more about institutional power (both wealth and connections) than what we would consider “genetic traits”.
This is an interesting question. If both institutional power and "good breeding" nearly completely overlap, how should we tell the difference?
At the moment, the best I can think of is to look at how important older ancestors were in a pedigree: if one cares only about institutional power, then one probably only cares about two* generations at most; if one cares about showing sustained evidence of good breeding, pedigrees would include ancestors who are dead and hence hold no temporal power whatsoever.
How does that sound?
* maybe 3 if you had a 15, 30, and 45 year old all as warlords in their own rights, but that's not a generic situation. My understanding is that the usual tenure was to have a single generation holding as much as possible, with the older generations retiring to monasteries to keep the land in the hands of military-age men.
EDIT: the balance of these concerns probably change between peace and war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror had trouble early in his career due to his illegitimacy, but by Nov 1066, he had a clear argument that, in matters of logistics and manoeuvre, he was puissant.
> This is an interesting question. If both institutional power and "good breeding" nearly completely overlap, how should we tell the difference?
We'd look at the existence of things like “corruption of blood” as an imposed social consequences of non-compliance with institutions of social power and and how formally acknowledged vs. well-known but unacknowledged illegitimate children were treated and recognize that “blood” is really code for instititutional position (even if associated with a mythology of some kind of, more lamarckian than darwinian, inheritance as a rationalization.)
Can you explain "corruption of blood" to me? I'm much more familiar with the early feudal period (in which a vassal enjoys tenancy on condition of service) so it makes sense to me that failed insurrections would be obviously result in forfeiture (with the corollary: no land no nobility) leading to a circular argument: he who draws his sword against his lord and succeeds must have had good blood; he who fails must have had corrupt blood.
EDIT: upon reflection, I think we're talking about different things. I'd agree with you that the underlying, possibly hypocritical, calculations are done with an eye to current temporal power; I am trying to explore the models they used and how they attempted to frame realpolitik-based decisions in socially-acceptable manners.
Consider realpolitik in The Republic, where it's explicitly stated that the gold, silver, bronze races are a convenient fiction and there has to be movement between them; in 1984, where it's explicitly stated that IngSoc (and the others) are all pure meritocracies in principle and practice, but there's still not much social movement; in the language of US mobsters "cut in the smart boys from the opposition, so that they can't set up a racket of their own."; in the language of marxists "utilization of potential leadership cadres from historically superseded classes"; and in the language of Vilfredo Pareto "capture of the rising elite".
You're playing semantic equivocation games to insinuate that the "trait" of having land is understood to be the same as some kind of genetic trait. These are not the same even if the language we use to discuss them lacks the granularity to clearly delineate them without going into specific definition setting tangents. When this discussion started, it was by way of Eugenics, a theory of breeding that simply did not exist in the time period of Charles II. The Hapsburgs could not have been trying selective breeding as it was originally brought up in this thread because the underlying ideology and science required to enact it did not exist.
We agree that the Hapsburgs could not have been trying Eugenics-style selective breeding because they lacked the science of genetics.
I maintain that they understood breeding domestic animals very well, and they tried their best, with the resources they had, to selectively breed "better" (aristo) people. (Much of feudalism makes way more sense if you start with the axiom that human society should reflect barnyard large domesticate societies) Even we don't know what would be "good genes" for being a successful warlord, so their approach of looking at past performance and hoping for future results (a noble is someone whose family has exclusively extracted rents for a certain number of generations; a royal is someone whose family has sat upon a throne) seems reasonable to me.
In particular, Charles II (like the Ptolemies and Cleopatras of Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty#Family_tree ) has clearly been line bred. (He is his own cousin — in multiple ways. We might quibble over the distinction between line- and inbreeding, but [a] I was trying to be charitable to the Habsburgs, and [b] I don't think that distinction is relevant to this discussion, so I'm happy to call anyone with too few ancestors "linebred")
If you think people would do better with early-20th century Eugenics than aristocratic societies have done over the last thousands of years, we can have that discussion, but I think it's a different one than I had intended. Along those lines, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39681181 for the problems I would be likely to bring up.
how would fluctuation in stock prices be handled?
if stocks go down , do you get a refund ?
this seems like a paperwork and fraud riddled method to achive a very minor impact on very few people who could be taxed directly when they access actual cash