The United States of Palestine?
December 2nd, 2012 - 10:05 am
“Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a bifurcated and impoverished terror state hellbent on destroying its neighbor?”
“A bifurcated and impoverished terror state hellbent on destroying its neighbor, if you can keep it.”
I’m going to enjoy it when Israel sues Palestine in the Hague for war crimes. And wins. Because without the media and chattering classes, there are no smoke and mirrors for the Palestinians to hide behind.
And I’ll also enjoy it when California becomes so bad that they dissolve their State Legislature, move to redraw the State Constitution………and promptly split into a North California and South California. Say goodbye to those 55 Electoral Votes, Democrats. It’s going to go bust in 10-20 years.
what makes you think the Apparatchiks will allow those 55 electorals to go away?
By hook or by crook they will work to keep something they perceive to be favorable to them remaining in power, even if it is something they would hate for their competition to have (see the silly filibuster issue).
Also I doubt the Hague folks are as unbiased as you think. While it would be fun if you are correct, I fear it is as solid and unbiased as anything in the E.U. (in case my /sarc tag doesn’t work, that means I’d expect them to ignore reality often)
JP, the apparatchiks won’t *be* there when the legislature dissolves and there is no state constitution. They’ll have no power outside of their local districts (such as it is) and won’t be able to maneuver the way you’re thinking. This is one of those cases where there “is no spoon” so to speak.
And by the time California goes off their own “fiscal cliff” we’ll see many liberals get mugged by reality and sharply turn libertarian and right. There will be hell to pay, and the progressive apparatchiks will fall hard.
And as for the Hague, it’s about the rule of law. In the case of a Israeli or Palestinian trial, if they try to act as statist diktats and ignore countervailing evidence in favor of a pre-determined three ring circus, they’ll lose credibility big time. They know the stakes that are in play.
California will split into a patchwork of new states. I predict something like this:
New Haight – SF Bay area and the entire coastline from Ventura northward
Silicon Valley – Needs no explanation.
Fruitbowl – The Central Valley and possibly portions of Napa and Sonoma.
West El Norte – Everything south/southeast of LA.
Hollyweird – Again, no explanation needed.
Eureka – The forgotten area north of SF
And, yes, those 55 sure thing EVs get diluted substantially but there will be a still depenadable rump remnanat of 25-35.
Will they have their own language? Maybe they could call it Haight Speech.
If California were to break up, it would depend on how the population centers are taken into account (or not) in the fracturing of the old state borders.
But the bottom line is that those 55 EVs are split, something like 28-27, which seriously hurts the Democrats chances to hold onto power in the long-term. Add to that the continued flight of businesses and middle class families from blue states like New York for much more friendly free market environments, and the Dems will be working from a much smaller base of electoral votes they can count on in presidential elections. For instance, add 27 EVs to Romney and take that many away from Obama, and it starts to look alot different.
Also, the addition of two states where there used to be California means that the Dems would have to actually campaign there- and probably lose. That’s money that’s no longer spent on the usual “battleground” states.
Oh, and while I’m at it: neither of the new states will function under the old California state constitution. This means no more referendum and plebiscite bullcrap, and an end to the blue state/union control over the political process. And it probably means the Dems can kiss all those moochers and takers goodbye, because they can’t/won’t get their goodies anymore.
In a nutshell? Please, please, please fail, California. It’s in everyone’s interests! (/snark on)
Except, then they’d get two, or more – depending on how finely you dice it, Senators. Democrats might go for it if they think they could win them.
Seems to me that this is a net benefit to the Israelis. If Palestine is a state, and Palestinians fire rockets into Israel, then a state of war exists between Israel and Palestine. The Israelis would be legally and morally justified in meeting unguided artillery with unguided artillery.
The idea of a Palestinian State is growing on me too.
Let’s send in tanks and take, say the lower third of Syria and say, “Here’s your state, Palestinians. We’ll even patrol and protect a 25 mile buffer all around you, just to make sure you stay safe. Enjoy!”
The way things are headed in Egypt right now I would say that the Mediterranean coastal region of the Sinai is a far better candidate. The land there is arable, vast and largely empty save a few nomadic Bedouin tribes. Surely those cooped up in the densely-packed squalor that is Gaza should not mind such resettlement.