That's the point. There is no path to becoming "naturalized", a legal resident or much more-so a citizen in your own country - whether you see that as Palestine or Israel. This is just one more mechanism to humiliate a population of millions.
Of course nobody cares that an Israeli Jew marrying a Lebanese, or a Jordanian, or an Egyptian, let alone a Saudi citizen, can't get Lebanese or Jordanian or Egyptian or Saudi citizenship.
But Israel must give citizenship to everyone... right?
This is happening between Palestinians. You can call them Arab Israelis if you want but they still identify as Palestinians. Splitting them up for the sake of division with these policies is political and systematic.
And yes a double standard applies compared to other countries because Israel identifies as a western liberal democracy whereas the others don’t or no one implies that they seriously are.
Main problem here that if Israeli citizen will decide to marry a Lebanese, or a Jordanian, or an Egyptian or even Saudi citizen, they won't be able to live in Israel.
Outrage of non-Israelis about is law is merely academical. Outrage of (some of) Israelis is practical: the state is putting a choice in front of a citizen -- be able to marry a person you want or be able to live in Israel.
Because I'm not a citizen of Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt. As an Israeli citizen I share the responsibility and am obliged to react to any colonial era exercise the government is trying to pull off.
The answers about the population not having the will to fight miss the point completely and are irrelevant and propagate racist views. Afghanistan has a pre-existing system of tribal relationships that are constantly dynamic. The Taliban are effective because they negotiated a path with the pre-existing power structures. The central government is only one player of many.
Most folks I know that purchase properties are not in it for cashflow. Breaking even is enough. The goal is to purchase the next one with a downpayment against existing equity. The deck of cards falls apart if the property market corrects significantly but how is that different than everything else happening in this economy.
For one it's an extremely capital intensive operation for most folks. In fact buying a property is usually many times their net worth. Which means now one is not allowed to make mistakes, because losing means not only going to zero, but going underwater many times over what the cashflow can cover.
This argument falls apart once a property is a fraction of someone's net worth, but it's rarely the case.
By passive I'll assume you mean less effort and risk than starting a new business that requires daily attention.
The nice things about the property market are:
1. High leverage - to a very high amount when you put down payments greater than 30-50%.
2. Managed or protected by some governments. Gives a more consistent rate of growth in many fast growth cities.
3. Cashflow and appreciation.
The details matter and there's obviously skill involved in making it work. At some point like other businesses you will need to hire others to manage the day-to-day if you choose to keep growing.
"For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end encryption" - there's a lot of important user generated data from Apple apps that is not end-to-end encrypted.
Frankly, I'd like to see them go even further and put in place a policy that all user-created-and-consumable content can only leave the device in end-to-end encrypted format and have those keys managed by my AppleID so not even Apple can decrypt.
They can introduce it at an API level without having to dictate storage providers. If a web-version of an app needs show my photos they can let the end-user browser decrypt it. This works for private data, 1:1 and 1:Many shared data.
I should have a choice with who hosts my encrypted data, who manages my keys/identity and who provides a service that uses that data. Let's get back to providing value through services and away from leaching value through hoarding data and controlling protocols.
Yes - this will force companies to change their business models if they rely on access to my data. Will it make for better software - Yes hands down. More companies can compete and we'll start to see more creative solutions.
These types of marketplaces do exist but it is very difficult to justify using them. Why pay a significant margin (15-30%) so that we can use a pre-existing billing mechanism inside AppExchange or Azure or AWS. It makes more sense to maintain your own billing system and buyer journey. If the margins go down to 5% then it becomes interesting to give up that control.
I don't think marketplace is the metaphor I'm looking for. A single purchasing portal that takes maybe 5% to keep the lights on is more like it. A PayPal or Stripe set up by a SaaS consortium just to remove friction from the industry might be a good approach.
There is no way to spin Spotify as a customer first company with shenanigans like this. It’s my data and I should be able to do anything I want with it. I’m happy to pay for superior product experience but not for them to hold my playlist data hostage.
I use songshift so I can copy my Spotify playlist to Apple Music...just so I can listen to music offline on my Apple Watch. How is it reasonable to have to pay for 2 music services just because interoperability sucks. Spotify and Apple are in this tug of war and it makes them both worse companies for their users.
Spotify has the API available to them, and could make a watch app, but chooses not to. So it seems like Spotify is to blame for both of your frustrations.
Isn't that addressed with the proposed exit tax that is part of the measure?
Numerically, "losing" 2 or 3 percent is not insurmountable to most people it affects. We lose as much through core inflation and significantly more so if you include asset price inflation. The idea does feel invasive though but that may as well be conditioning.
In western nations, we accept income taxes as justified to have an egalitarian society, but this wasn't always the case. There are countries without income taxes and the concept is not perceived as justified at all. Governments have to make the case and condition people to support the measure when it is introduced until it is normalized and no one questions it.
A good question is whether production shifts to nations without wealth taxes. I haven't seen this addressed in research. There is evidence that suggests production shifting away from high corporate tax environments but this is also countered by evidence that significant intangible value is created in high tax environments and this keeps that productive capacity from leaving to cheaper environments.
3% is a lot when compounded yearly. The article says that Marc Zuckerberg has 85 billion in assets. If we assume that's all in cash (it isn't), that he retires this year (seems unlikely, but whatever), that this measure passes and isn't repealed (etc), and that he lives to be 80, then over the next 44 years he'd pay 62.75 billion dollars in taxes. On top of inflation. Why would anyone let that happen, when they could prevent it by moving just a few miles in any direction? I'm sure there are a lot of places that are nicer to retire to than Palo Alto.
But you are right; income taxes were once seen as a really radical and unlikely idea. I don't think that means that we should resign ourselves to eventually be facing both income and wealth taxes.
This is not correct. The article states that Tik-Tok went above and beyond Turkish or Chinese laws with their guidelines. This puts the burden on TikTok to justify it's tactics. It seems more likely that they want a platform that does not offend the sensibilities of its target users. This is fine but they can't hide behind local laws and it is fairgame for them to be labelled as a bad actor for helping trample people's rights. Clearly not well-intentioned and deserving of backlash.
But that’s why they called “guidelines” and not “rules”. It’s just a guideline for the local moderator to make a decision on enforcing, it’s not a rule.
