Comments by "MacAdvisor" (@MacAdvisor) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. Yes, a one-state solution is great for Israelis, but it leaves little for the Palestinians except for permanent and ongoing second-class status. Under Israeli law, they couldn't even marry. Thus, David is absolutely right, only a two-state solution is a solution.
    3
  2. If I may, I agree with almost everything in your outline for peace, except for the consequences part of Gaza. The problem, as I see it, is a small, non-representative faction, even just one person, could violate the agreement and send a rocket from Gaza into Israel, bringing about a retaliation/punishment against Palestine, while blockading Gaza truly requires the vast powers and authority of the Israeli government to impose, thus truly implicating the state of Israel. Palestinians can be held collectively accountable for the actions of one member or a small group, but Israel is only held accountable when, through democratic elections, by a majority of Israelis, they violate the agreement. That is unworkable. Moreover, maintaining a blockade between Israel and Gaza would seem a reasonable first step, *IF* we could open Gaza to the Egyptian side and to the sea ports. That would allow for the economic development in Gaza without having them involved directly with Israel. I also must point out, while Hamas's original charter is anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli, Israeli governments have been rather anti-Hamas and anti-Muslim. Hamas has, however, agreed to Israel's right to exist. In 2006, Hamas signed the Palestinian Prisoners' Document, which recognized the 1967 borders. I can't find anything on the Israeli side accepting a Hamas that accepts the 1967 borders has a right to exist. Can we really have a peace framework that leaves out the ruling party of one of the parties?
    2
  3. I am sorry, but this triggers one of my pet peeves. "If you *were* Jewish…" "Was" is the past tense of "to be." It denotes events in the past. "Were" is the subjunctive, that is something that could have been, but is not the case. Also, I think one could be both Jewish and British.
    2
  4. Let me state very clearly, I am an unmarried gay man in his 60s as well as a Yellow-dog, Bernie voting liberal Democrat market socialist. David, you seriously need to think about why you are not married when you have a child and a long-term romantic and life partner. Marriage is not a contract. Those who think it is do not know what a contract is, nor what marriage is. Marriage forms a family, a very different legal entity from both a partnership, a corporation, and single individuals working together on something. Marriage provides protection for economically disadvantaged partners. That is one of the main reasons I fought so hard for same-sex marriage. We don't live in a society where one person can pretend they became economically successful completely on their own and not be forced to share some of that wealth, if not half, with their spouse. Marriage gives you a set of real rights if something happens to your spouse. When I was in my twenties, I was deeply, madly in love with a man I lived with. We set up our household, bought furniture together, opened a joint bank account, all the stuff couple do. He was mortally wounded in a fire and took a month to die. His mother barred me from the hospital. She entered our home while I was at work and took everything she thought belonged to him. She emptied our joint account, including the money for rent. She wouldn't tell me where he was inurned. None of that would have happened if we'd been married. While you may rightfully suggest much can be mitigated by good estate planning, which at 25 and 22 we did not have, determined relatives can even overcome that. There is even worse for your child. Under the Married Couple Rule, the parentage of a child born to a wedded couple is safe from challenge save by anyone not in the marriage. Being married ensure a child has protection of inheritance and other legal rights due to being born within a marriage. I beg of you to reconsider and get married if you truly want a life partnership.
    1
  5. Having worked with young people in my neighborhood, I now support abortion to the 87th trimester.
    1
  6. Actually, the law does work like that. A jury is perfectly able to draw an inference about the quality and value of the testimony of a witness. A former attorney for the accused who was has pled guilty in the same case would have a different value of testimony than a guy Trump road up with in an elevator who didn't know him, but testified Trump admitted to wanting to subvert the election.
    1