Any system can be undermined with enough criminal energy.
People often argue against certain laws that they can be abused if judges collude with the executive.
But if the separation of power between executive, legislative and judiciary and the related mutual controls break down then the actual laws don't matter anymore anyway.
Where’s the NATO equivalent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
Headquartered in Moscow.
Now think for yourself why Ukraine would rather protect itself from being invaded by Russia than by the US.
Unfortunately that's exactly how it works.
Look at any country's border and tell me which ones weren't established by violence.
The actual question is, what alternative to accepting Israel's existence would you propose. Because forcefully removing them would just be one more crime.
Yes, opposing the establishment of a new state with a new population where someone else already lived would have been appropriate in the late 1940s.
Unfortunately it's 2024 now, Israel does exist and time is linear.
So the only thing that can be done now is to recognize neither Israel nor Palestine should be erased.
(Though pointing out that the latter doesn't seem to get mentioned here would be appropriate.)
and the houses will not go on the market
I understand the other arguments but I'm confused about this one.
If houses that were used to house tourists are no longer allowed to do so, why would they not become available for either rent or sale?
What else is there for the owners to do with them?
Not to weigh in on one side or the other but the Nazis claimed a lot of things.
That they were socialists, that Poland had attacked Germany...
I wouldn't rely on what they said.
Barcelona still has plenty of regular commercial Hotels that are purpose built to house many tourists.
somehow an even bigger clusterfuck
I agree that rejoining won't magically solve all problems but I don't see how it would make things worse.
austerity measure after austerity measure and somehow made our budgetal deficit worse
Not surprising.
Reducing government spending means reducing the money that is in economic circulation.
Companies earn less, people earn less and ultimately taxes go down.
Ah, I see.
So the water is not too warm for cooling, it's too warm to absorb the backfeed, which is a necessary result of the cooling process.
Which effectively still means that they can't properly cool the plant because the river water is too warm.
Besides providing verbatim records of who said what, there is a second can of worms in forming any sort of binding agreement if the two sides of the agreement are having two different conversations.
I think this is what the part about the missed nuance means.
If it is truly anonymized then it isn't protected under GDPR.