acargitz @ theacharnian @lemmy.ca

Posts

71

Comments

1,698

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sure yes absolutely. But that doesn't negate the obligation of the CBC to write more accessibly.

In this case what really threw me off is that "residents" are intern doctors and "internists" are permanent doctors.

Revenue and profits are not the same thing. If you're going to abrasively assert stuff, at least don't be wrong.

What a horribly written article! I couldn't tell the reason why the doctors resigned. There are too many jargon terms in there that I don't recognize. I had to ask ChatGPT the explain it to me. Here it is in plain language:

Five doctors at St. Clare’s Mercy Hospital resigned because they say their workplace has become too unsafe to keep doing their jobs. The tipping point came when the hospital pulled out resident doctors — junior physicians who usually handle much of the day-to-day patient care under supervision. That left just five senior doctors to care for around 100 patients, handle up to 20 emergency cases a day, and respond to life-or-death situations like cardiac arrests — all without enough help. But this wasn’t an isolated problem. The doctors say they’ve been raising concerns for months, and that the health authority has ignored them and failed to offer any real plan to fix things. They’re warning that without action, patients will be at serious risk and staff will burn out. Their resignation is a last resort — a way to force the system to face a growing crisis that’s been building for far too long.

I only responded to the things that either I disagree with or genuinely don't understand. For anything else, sure, thumbs up, what else is there to say?

Edit: in the meantime, you left my questions unanswered. What part of my reasoning is questionable? And what is your reasoning that the 2SS is attainable?

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself:

• On the one hand you are saying that "who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967".
• On the other hand you are saying that the removal of the settlers from the West Bank is "not helpful or useful".

I am very confused what you are proposing here. 1967 borders with the settlers in the Palestinian side of the border? Or did you flinch at the term "ethnic cleansing", assuming wrongly that I meant "killing people"? When I wrote "Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers" I meant to say that in this scenario, Israel would forcibly remove its own citizens from the colonies in the West Bank. A forcible removal of 700k jews from an area can be reasonably described as a form of ethnic cleansing. That's all I meant.

So, to get around the words with mean connotations, I am not at all clear what scenario you are propagating. In your imaginary Two State Solution, what happens to the Israeli settlers?

• Do they get forcibly removed to Israel? Because if you believe that any Israeli government could do that to 700k voters, I have some magic seeds to sell you.
• Do they become Palestinian citizens, disarm and become subject to Palestinian law and subject to the legal monopoly of state violence by the army and police of Palestine? Because if you believe that is politically feasible, I have a whole warehouse of unicorn feathers to sell you.

On the other hand, a post-apartheid democracy would indeed have the political structures to slowly undo the damage, e.g., by mandating integration policies, establishing reparation schemes, etc.

The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close. Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.

You are not explaining or giving any kind of argument why (a) you think that "my" solutions are not viable (b) the two state solution is viable.

You are just asserting that, without any rationale. My post above contains a specific reasoning. Where is my reasoning wrong? What is your reasoning?

At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.

What do you mean "at least"? If you want to start throwing spurious accusations of antisemitism, do it now and get it over with. I have no interest in bad faith discourse.

Well, given my previous post two comments up the thread, I'm obviously Tunisian.

You are American, I presume?

Economics is a social science like Linguistics, Political Science, Social Work and Human Geography.

It is not a natural science like Physics or Chemistry.

The problem arises when economists, typically "orthodox" ones (the very existence of an orthodoxy/heterodoxy should raise all sorts of flags) demand that the predictions of their models be treated as natural laws, which of course they aren't.

Meanwhile "nation building" according to the government means locking in even more CO2 emissions. Why do the Tories and the Liberals hate Canada the place so much?

The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.

In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options:

A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.

B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.

There used to be an phrase that Israel can be "large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2". Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of "Large". So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.

What a profoundly stupid thing to say.

Kindly, a Greek who isn't making ridiculous claims on Marseille, Taranto, Constantinople, Caesarea, Cyrene, Antioch and Alexandria on the motherfucking Indus.

What kind of "discussion" beyond "Don't Go To Trumpist USA It's Not Worth It, PS RIP Their Tourist Industry" do you want to meaningfully have?

That's silly.

Yes that makes sense.

So let's not subsidize sprawl. Let's make it so all Canadian cities look like Montreal: dense, walkable, pretty, and transit and cycling oriented. But the idea that existing owners should be given a pass is antisocial.

Why? Because we live in a society.

Well clearly you have me all figured out, motives and all.

My original argument is specific: the way the European powers have aligned themselves with Israeli craziness does not inspire confidence that the Democrats would have been less hawkish. Underlying assumption: the Democrats tend to be as dovish as the Europeans.

The previous commenter made a counterfactual claim that Harris would not have pulled out of JCPOA and I pointed out that a Harris admin wouldn't have a JCPOA to pull out of.

You're now spinning a narrative around these very simple things I've said. Did the tankies hurt you and now you see them everywhere?

Trump killed off the JCPOA in 2018. Biden had four years after 2020 to do something about that and didn't. So I don't know what you're basing your assertion on, it sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

But Germany's Staatsräson says you have to do whatever Israel wants.