Currently it’s more the latter. If we had a full-fledged cap-and-trade law, there’d be more accountability in place. Right now you see where the money is going and decide whether you a) trust the organization b) feel confident that the project is going to be an effective offset.
What would you recommend Israel do when Hamas's charter literally says that they what to destroy Israel and the Jews? Hamas is Gaza's elected party and letting them import weapons is very bad for Israeli civilians.
Hamas is Israel's creation. Fatah were the dominant political force in Gaza over the decades and decades of oppression until Hamas were finally founded more recently as an attempt at firmer and less tolerant response to Israel.
Sure, but you didn't answer the question. Even if Hamas and even Gaza are totally Israel's fault, the fact that Hamas wants to destroy Israel makes some of Israel's actions pretty damn rational. What else can they do? "Shit, we pushed these Palestinians way too hard for way too long. Fair enough, they can bomb the shit out of our country now".
All that said, I'm not invested in the matter, and I'm a geopolitics noob, but I wonder what would happen if Israel would, unprovoked and unilaterally, drop all restrictions, recognize Palestina as a country and supply as much financial aid as is needed to rebuild the place. Just overnight. Wouldn't Hamas's support crumble instantly? Wouldn't the atmosphere be exactly like when they took down the Berlin wall?
I mean, would Palestinian combatants truly use the newly opened borders to immediately drive into Tel Aviv and shoot everybody? Tbh I don't see it.
Exactly. For all of Hamas' talk, it's not only reactive, it also results in a disproportionately small level of anti-Israel violence in practice due mostly to lack of resources (comparatively).
If Israel withdrew all restrictions unilaterally, would there be offensive actions by Hamas: almost certainly. But they'd likely be on a scale many orders of magnitude smaller than Israel's actions to date, and I doubt they'd be sustained.
Seriously? So following your logic the US should just let al qaeda access to weapons and let them vent off in NY.
"would there be offensive actions by [al qaeda]: almost certainly. But they'd likely be on a scale many orders of magnitude smaller than [US's actions in Afghanistan] to date, and I doubt they'd be sustained"
I hope I'll never live in a country that will allow their citizens to die in order to appease some murderous religious group.
Oh, right. I guess I did notice the change but sort of seamlessly just moved on. Aside from the sidebar(s), I still honestly don't notice any significant difference.
Not every individuals, but there are people that are trustworthy. Institutions rarely are because they are only as trustworthy as the people on top who change every once in a while
Where did you hear that? 3 hasn’t even been competitive vs 2 until very recently.
Reasons for the switch have always been better Unicode handling and not being left behind as the community matches on (and soon lack of security updates to 2).
First of all that is looking at British Muslims who are a tiny minority of the 1.6-2 billion Muslims in the world.
Maybe take a look at the number of muslim civilians killed in Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh by the number of Muslim extremists. It's a lot more than you seem to think.
British Muslims would seem to be one of the least radical Muslims. After all, they don't kill gays like Muslims in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen etc.
I never claimed that radical Muslims don't want to kill other Muslims. In fact the Sunni and Shiite conflict probably killed more Muslims than non-Muslims.
That $68 earning is either going to the employee or the employer. If law forces it to go to the employees then the employers could try to hire people for $68 less salary.
