Two state solution is dead? Long live the 1 state Solution !

I don't accept that the Two state 'solution' (sic) (read reality ) is dead ...not until every last Arab and or Palestinian is dead.
All that will be achieved by the One state (sic) will be temporary, in historic terms, and the apartheid will be further institutionalised. The only ones who will be 'temporarily content' will be the extremist Zionists buoyed by this success they will still play the 'existential threat' (fear) card and will do so until they control all the land in described in the Torah … perhaps beyond. Of course the Arabs will oblige for their own fears making it a self fulfilling prophecy . Can anyone point to a nation once 'secure ' in their own boundaries didn't go for hegemonic empire 'by necessity to ensure resources' (aka greed)? e.g USA .

It is functionally naive to suggest otherwise. Therefore the notion that a larger Israel will solve anything .
Neither will the Arabs simply say well that's that and not harbour resentment . Even the Jewish history should tell the Zionists and others that....How many years did they live in 'exile' ? human nature isn't a light switch!
Let me be clear about where I stand .To me the whole debate is a nonsense , it ignores the realities in that it has been couched by the extremist Jewish Zionists V the equally emotionally motivated Muslims. No one has seriously asked what is the problem that needed solving ...Answer ...a 'homeland' where Jews are such that they can't be deported ( THE holocaust sic)* .
What I'm disputing is the sloppy logic and the flawed (loaded)*methodology * that ignores the above Human Nature.

It seems to me that there is two options .
1. Israel gets its act together and puts the extremist back in their proportional box and acknowledge the reality that a Zionist Israel is treading water in a hostile sea in which case it WILL disappear by 'the sword' (in a 'spring', 'summer' what ever)
2. Or become an integrated part of the by then less hostile sea ...One state one in which no minority can be deported.

So where's the disagreement you ask ? The key is in the fine print. FIRST Israel has to get it's act together.... etc. There is a rapidly closing of opportunity to do this to avoid well internal war....( including Arab) Israeli V Zionist ….the settlers etc become too greater mass. My point here is that while the issue is manageable the two states declared, heading off a serious conflict that would involve the wider Arabs resulting in destruction of Zionist Israel and therefore failure of the original objective. A one state REVOLUTION now would simply compound the problem.

Practically, any such change within Israel would have to be EVOLUTIONARY. Declaring two states back to the 67 boarders would bring the electoral gerrymander giving the extremists (the controlling minority) into proportion of the total Israeli electorate. Both side would win.
I have no doubt that once Israel becomes truly Democratic and in time Israel will become the more stable Israelistine in which expulsion could be constitutionally impossible. The original objective would be therefore guaranteed NOW and in both the 2 state interim stage and ultimate inevitable and only long-term stable solution.

*[N.B. I'm not denying the mass extermination of Jews and OTHERS or the totally obscenity of it ..just the assumed proprietary (PR) ownership of the term and the virtual ignoring of the equally horrific extermination of others (e.g. including Gypsies.. Romany ). Question where is their 'homeland'?.. their problem? Why the difference? But that's another question.]

Mussings on freedom Speech

If one has followed the the phone hacking scandal in the UK. it is clear that Murdoch knew about it and turned a blind eye to the culture of the abuse of power of his news papers. The papers bullied slandered and breached several laws over a long term. Merely paying bribes to govt officials/ police/ politicians et al is against the law. But they did that with impunity. Regardless of his having prior knowledge of the actual phone tapping, he isn't/wasn't so dumb as not to have realised that it was impossible to have an endless parade of 'victims' and targeting of those who opposed his interests didn't emanate from questionable source mining. Further to that he must have know that his special pleading and changing governments to a more compliant one was also clearly wandering into at best undemocratic at worst illegal territory.

Likewise his boast that he had pictures (presumably illegally gotten) . He was also well aware that such pictures need not be of any illegal activity just that they may sufficiently embarrassing to 'neutralise' the individuals (i.e. blackmail them..... which is illegal and as such he's a common thug).

His papers weren't acting the public interest of need to know and the noble ideal of freedom of speech it was simply manipulation of the unwary, ignorant and the pathological self interested , by pandering to the less admirable

The Sun and the News of the World have the right to freedom of speech to say what ever they want either true or untrue? Being real the chances of a successful court outcome was very much against anyone who opposed them.

In truth it was a happy set of circumstances and tactical blunders that the whole shit hit the fan.

I think it's interesting how Rupert reacted in the enquiry trying to manage the news by his irrelevant comment of “this being the most humiliating day in his life”.... and ? Additionally he also has a history of promising one thing then doing the other. He would have you believe he is just a business man and regards money as the determining factor of worth as a human being. But is it ? If profit was his only concern may of his papers would have closed years ago as unprofitable. He would be well aware of “opportunity cost” (what earnings the capital invested/losses would have made if invested elsewhere).

What it does show are marked symptoms of sociopathic tendencies... no conscience, promising one thing to governments then doing the opposite to satisfy his wants.. His life is typified by lust for power...

One is entitled to wonder what is still hidden in other countries and businesses … The leopards and spots thing?

If we take his example we can confirm the research data that may heads of Corporations display the same sociopathic tendencies. As your self is this what we need to our leaders to be? Totally self obsessed to the disregard of others often seeing those who don't see things their way as the enemy … and the end justifies the means.

Is this what we mean by Freedom of Speech? I hope not.

I rather think that Freedom of speech is conditional based on a test of who how and why (context) of what was said rather than the word(s).

If it isn't then our definition of the purpose of a society is wrong. And we by extension merely naked apes after all and Malthus was right our civilisations are no more than an adoration to the ultimate goal of the 1^st law .of thermodynamics …. we are driven by evolution for no point.

Personally I take the view that we are a more advanced species with a more advanced degree of comprehension of abstract thoughts like right and wrong. This gives us if we chose to use it to determine our own evolution. 

This is in answer to   Robert P. Murphy (economist) about AGW

the problem is where does one draw the line?
In the western world there is this monumental Myth that there is such a thing as free speech... there never was, isn't and couldn't be unless one is advocating a law of the jungle ...the Malthusian concept of the biggest, badest, most ruthless survives and all others don't... not for mine. The reality is that freedom of speech is has always will be conditional.
We live in a society and any definition of that concept includes sub concepts like co-operation, mutual benefit , harmony... *without * which it won't last. This doesn't mean sitting around in a love In etc. But it does mean a preponderance of the key positives. Arguments advocating extremes ( binary B/w) are simply silly.
And that leaves us with the first question, put another way, “ when is an idea (?) acceptable and when is it not?” A real conundrum particularly if one tries to codify it.
It's a bit like codifying good manners...*that * is always changing.

Personally it comes down to the intention of the 'speech' i.e. would a reasonable man/person see the speech as .....e.g. positive, neutral, or negative intentioned, in the context rather than the word(s).
e.g. is one is speaking factually/ reporting the Nazi ideas of racial supremacy that is neutral but to then go ahead and advocate that in what can be described as hate or inciting speech then it isn't.
There is a big difference between saying I don't believe in AGW because of A- B- C facts contradicting E-f-g but it's a different thing altogether deliberately (wantonly) lying or miss leading for profit, particularly given the consequences for all societies. My view here is that this man's nonsense is negative and is Intentionally designed to advantage a minority AT THE COST OF ALL SOCIETIES. There, it is hate speech. My assessment is largely based on the fact that he does know better ...he has a PhD and therefore knows how to reasonably put an argument. HE chose not to therefore guilty of incitement to do harm.
The key here is that to the average man he is a learned person and therefore his words should be given preferential weighting. He Knew this as did his employers, he has conveniently/ deliberately done is abuse this weighting. If for example Hispanic Pundit or I had written the diatribe it would have been (rightfully) ignored. Again the Key is context.
Even a PhD and NOBEL laureate in Biochemistry recently in a speech prefaced it with a clear acknowledged that he wasn't an expert in the field and would confine his comments to what was known and the consensus. Keep in mind that the whole doubt raising bluster was concocted by 3 aging physicists to help Big Tobacco .
If someone wants intellectual respect they should earn it and maintain it not sell it to the highest bidder.
I would argue he and his ilk has degraded education.