Plasmodium

Yes, in response to that.

Directly attacked the US military. Multiple times. For the first time, ever.

It is a war between one of the best trained and equipped armies in the world and a ragtag group that doesn't even have the support of the government of the people they claim to represent. Who is Israel going negotiate an end to this with? Hamas? They only represent themselves. The PA? Hardly, they aren't even involved. It is the Palestinians that have been, are now and will continue to be the ones suffering.

I think this is the general consensus. https://news.yahoo.com/lindsey-graham-says-no-limit-134328868.html Personally, I support Israel's inalienable right to defend itself. But that support is not absolute. They are approaching a point where the victim of a horrifying act becomes the prepetrator of something much worse. With no proportionality for this act, the discussion is going to have to open to include the history of the reasons terrorists exist and obstacles to possible peaceful solutions there. Israel risks losing widespread good will and empathy. I am already questioning why we need to supply military support. The military outcome is not in question. At all. It is the politics that are in question.

It is not the divorce that causes the issues. It is the substance abuse, physical and mental abuse, neglect, narcissism and myriad of other behaviors that result in the divorce that causes the problems. Additionally, some divorces result in a workable solution for all involved.

Waiting periods already exist

The state controlling the means of production is a cardinal tenet of socialism, so it is implied when you said the Bern is a socialist.

Ill tell you what I am. I am rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

These guys are jumping the shark. May as well go full evangelical and declare that what God has joined together let man not separate.

Divorce is necessary if and only if one or both of the spouses decides it is. It is nobody else's business. It is very simple.

Every situation is different. The only way any of it works is for the people involved to make their own decisions for their own reasons.

Obviously no disagreement.

We don't need any new definitions. They are legal terms not club speak.

No

What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

Interesting research you have going. Keep sharing.

Compelling people to remain married is an absurd intrusion on free choice so eliminating that is overwhelmingly good no matter the effects elsewhere.

Nothing is unique about ethnic cleansing and stealing land. The difference here is we point the finger at the past but justify it when it unfolds right before our eyes. It won't bring peace. This has already happened many times in the Holy Land. The crusades, for example. The Palestinians will always claim their share, because it is indeed theirs.

Forever backwards.

The Bern, who is awesome, labels himself a democratic socialist. Straight from the horses mouth. https://time.com/4121126/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/

? 6'3" 195lbs. Blue eyes. Auburn hair. We all know this.

True, Islam didn't exist until the 6th century. Doesn't mean the ancestors of the Palestinians weren't there. Some of them were and remain Christians.

We definitely have.

I don't think there is any questioning the upper echelon of any society has it better than the rest.

Yes, the nomadic Arabs were. You are probably referencing Bedouins. That doesn't say anything about Palestinians.