Moderate Palestinian factions would be dead.Why? A healthy democracy should have both sides of the aisle thriving. The problem with politics in Israel is not that it has a conservative faction, but that the left-of-center faction (Labor etc.) is moribund. Labor itself got <4% in last elections.This person's critique of Israel is "Israel needs to reject their conservative faction".
By the way, in "Palestine" conservative and moderately left factions would be a great improvement. All factions with any detectable support are either some flavor of fascist (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) or else Marxist-Leninist (PFLP, splitters!). Not that they had any elections recently. Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president, is in the 19th year of his 4 year term.
Exactly. We inflict a lot more collateral damage than Israel does.Do not be deceived. The reason Israel is judged by a very different standard than any other country is that it is the Jewish state.Nothing about Jews.
If US kills Al Shabab terrorists in Somalia or ISIS terrorists in Syria, nobody bats an eye. But if US takes out Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists in Gaza or Jenin, many people lose their minds.
"Factions" in the Palestinians represent where the terrorist money comes from, not what the people want. It's impossible for the Palestinians to have a meaningful representative government until that terrorist money is severely curtailed.As I said, them having a conservative faction would be a great improvement over their current political landscape.The West Bank, when they have independence, will probably have a conservative faction they need to oust.
Yeah, heavy metals become an issue when you use them in non-recoverable forms. They're not a problem when a proper recovery system exists.Lead has many legitimate uses. And while we can transition away from lead now, we probably would not have been able to develop modern technology that we do have. And technically uranium is a heavy metal, and nuclear power is a very clean and safe one (based on deaths per TWh produced).The most important health and safety restriction through all time is "don't use heavy metals, including and especially lead, or friable mineral materials where living creatures can get impacted by them or their use or manufacture."
What I would like to see is mandated deposits on heavy metals. To pull a number out of the air for illustration lets say $10/kg on lead, indexed for inflation. The recipient pays the source that amount independent of any other aspects of the transaction. (If you're mining them the recipient is the government.) The government is always a "buyer", although they need not actually pay anything beyond the deposit amount. Gathering it from loose forms in the environment (which would include ordinary trash landfills!) is not mining as it was already extracted.
Set the deposit high enough to get most of it recycled when the current use is no longer functional or needed. (I've got a decent amount of lead around here in the form of worn-out lead-acid batteries and no meaningful recycling options for it. That sort of situation should not exist for a material we don't want loose in the environment! A few now serve secondary duty as weights (they're AGM, not wet cells, no acid issues) but most just are stacked up awaiting a practical way to recycle them.)
While most carbon uses aren't recoverable I favor the same approach--a cost per kg for mining (or drilling) it.What is too much? Would we have technology for modern EVs if we did not use carbon based high energy density sources like coal and oil to jumpstart the industrial revolution? I doubt it.Right behind that is "don't extract too much bound up carbon"