Florida Update

~ Clarissa

How is it going, people in Florida? Does anybody have an update?

Very worried over here.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

20 thoughts on “Florida Update”

  1. The current Arab Israeli War fought on more than 7 Fronts.

    In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared on July 19th that Israel’s occupation and apartheid rule in the Palestinian territories must end immediately. Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs prioritizes the sovereign State of Palestine within the framework of the two-state solution.

    The most recent UNGA condemnation of Israel makes a Chapter 7 ultimatum, Israel should withdraw from all occupied Palestinian territory, halt settlement activities, evacuate settlers, and provide reparation. As if Israel lost the June 1967 War, and that Israel attacked Jordan rather than the reverse.

    On September 18, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution with overwhelming support. That resolution demands that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    Basically this UN Chapter 7 Resolution treats Israel as post WWII Nazi Germany. It unilaterally determines Israeli international borders and divides post ’67 Israel into two hostile States, it divides Jerusalem as if it compares to Hitlers’ Berlin, and it makes a forced population transfer of all Israelis in Samaria like as the Allies forced all Germans to depart from Prussia!

    The UNGA called upon all UN Member States to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel’s ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    The Assembly urged States to refrain from recognizing Israel’s presence in the Territory as lawful and to ensure that they do not provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the occupation. This includes taking measures to prevent their nationals, companies, and entities under their jurisdiction from engaging in activities that support or sustain Israel’s occupation.

    Additionally, the Assembly called on States to cease importing products originating from Israeli settlements and to halt the transfer of arms, munitions, and related equipment to Israel in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    The resolution also urged States to implement sanctions, such as travel bans and asset freezes, against individuals and entities involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the Territory. This includes addressing issues related to settler violence and ensuring that those engaged in these activities face legal and financial consequences.

    Additionally, the Assembly called on States to cease importing products originating from Israeli settlements and to halt the transfer of arms, munitions, and related equipment to Israel in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    The resolution also urged States to implement sanctions, such as travel bans and asset freezes, against individuals and entities involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the Territory. This includes addressing issues related to settler violence and ensuring that those engaged in these activities face legal and financial consequences.

    The UNGA resolution, while framed in the language of international law and human rights, presents a highly contentious and arguably biased perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The comparison to Nazi Germany purposely addresses inflammatory racism, but then so does the UN Resolution use of the term Apartheid!

    The resolution ignores crucial historical context and the complexities of the conflict, particularly the role of Palestinian rejection of previous peace proposals and the ongoing violence perpetrated by various Palestinian groups. Professor Sachs’s support for the two-state solution, while seemingly aligned with the UNGA resolution’s surface goal, is complicated by the resolution’s unilateral approach. The resolution’s demand for a complete Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories, including East Jerusalem and settlements, effectively dismantles the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution.

    The resolution’s invocation of international law is selective. While it emphasizes Israel’s alleged violations, it largely ignores the actions of Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, which frequently engage in violence and terrorism. Furthermore, the resolution’s demand for complete Israeli withdrawal raises questions about the principle of sovereignty and the right of self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting solution requires a recognition of both sides’ legitimate security concerns and aspirations.

    The call for sanctions against Israel, including travel bans and asset freezes, risks escalating the conflict and harming the prospects for peace. Such measures could be counterproductive, further polarizing the situation and undermining efforts towards dialogue and negotiation.

    The one-sided framing, historical inaccuracies, and potentially destabilizing calls for sanctions raise serious questions about its effectiveness and its contribution to a lasting peace. A more balanced and nuanced approach, one that acknowledges the complexities of the conflict and respects the rights and security concerns of both sides, is crucial for achieving a just and sustainable solution.

    The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BCE occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between what are now Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza. The name was revived by the Romans in the 2nd century CE in “Syria Palaestina”, designating the southern portion of the province of Syria. In the Byzantine era the name was used for the provinces of Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Salutaris (or Tertia). Palaestina Prima was then administered as a jund (military district) by the Arabic name Filasṭīn in the early Islamic era.

    After the Crusades the name remained in informal use as a geographic designation, but it had no official status until after World War I and the end of rule by the Ottoman Empire, when it was adopted for one of the regions mandated to Great Britain. In addition to an area roughly comprising present-day Israel and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip (along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea) and the West Bank (west of the Jordan River), the mandate included the territory east of the Jordan River now constituting the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which Britain placed under an administration separate from that of Palestine immediately after receiving the mandate for the territory.

    The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has adopted a number of resolutions stating that Israel’s strategic relationship with the United States, a superpower and permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, encourages the former to pursue aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

    The 9th Emergency Session of the UNGA was convened at the request of the UNSC when the United States blocked all efforts to adopt sanctions against Israel. The United States responded to the frequent criticism from United Nations organs by adopting the Negroponte doctrine of opposing any UNSC resolutions criticizing Israel that did not also denounce Palestinian militant activity.

    The 2023 UNGA Resolutions on Israel vs. Rest of the World singled out Israel while ignoring menacing actions of other states, including Iran’s illegal efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of Security Council and IAEA resolutions. It ignores overt and repeated threats against the existence of Israel by neighboring states in the region. UN Watch opposes the adoption of one-sided and counterproductive resolutions at the United Nation. They have launched a campaign urging countries to oppose them.

    Competing national narratives? Never an Arab Balestinian state. The letter P does not exist in the Arab alphabet! Israel won, it did not lose the June 1967 War. Jordan has renounced all claims to the territory of Samaria. Samaria – intrinsic to the League of Nations Mandate Palestine – which in turn bases itself upon the Balfour Declaration.

    Arab states rejected UN Resolution 181 and thereafter lost the war which Arab countries started. On what basis do “competing national narratives, historical grievances, and the struggle for self-determination” even exist. Arafat rejected Samaria and E. Jerusalem but he refused to recognize Jewish self determination as a equal right of the Jewish people!

    Competing national narratives serves as Arab propaganda which conceals that Arabs fundamentally and absolutely rejected the right of Jews to have self determination in any land in the Middle East.

    The roots of this conflict do not stretch back over a century — based upon the false parameters of narratives shaped by Arab experiences, memories, and historical events. During the post WWI British mandate Arabs never referred to themselves as Palestinians. Not till the KGB and Arafat propaganda which established the PLO in 1964 did Arabs switch and embrace the European word “Palestine”.

    The root of the Arab Israeli conflict centers not on propaganda lies. Arabs always lie. Pre-state Israel all Arab leaders absolutely rejected the idea that cursed lowly Jewish slaves for over a thousand years had equal rights to self determination.

    The term “Greater Syria” (or “Bilad al-Sham” in Arabic) encompasses a broader region beyond present-day Lebanon and parts of Syria that Arabs living within British Palestine referred to themselves. Arabs rejected the Balfour Declaration and therefore abhored the term Palestine/Palestinian.

    Arabs rejected the League Palestine Mandate because for Jews to live in the Middle East as equals to Arabs an utter disgrace which no Arab nation could stomach. Herein defines all the Arab Israeli wars to the current one fought today.

    Arabs reject the propaganda rhetoric of competing national aspirations. The entire history of Arab domination of the Middle East, tolerated dhimmi Jews lived as inferior second class “slaves”. Arab rejected UN 181 because that resolution presumed a two-state solution! Arab pride and Ego could never accept the idea that dhimmi Jews has equal rights to self determination.

    Arab rejection of UN Partition Plan 181 exposes the deep racial prejudices. The idea that dhimmi Jews as equals to their Arab masters, akin to a slave revolt which the Arabs committed to pressent date to utterly obliterate. The Arab-Israeli conflict—the deeply entrenched historical prejudices and the struggle for equality and self-determination.

    Arabs rejected UN181 due to there deep seated racism of dhimmi Jews. That’s calling a spade a spade. The Arabs likewise abhorred the Xtian Crusaders, whom they eventually expelled from the Middle East. Those who remained lived as 2nd class dhimmi slaves. Europeans well understand Arab anti-Jewish racism. For 2000+ years Europeans despised and detested Christ killer Jews who killed babies to make Matza and poisoned the wells. Hence Europeans ignore the Arab rejection of UN 181, because had Britain and France and Germany had their way, there never would have arose from the dead the Jewish State after the Shoah!

    Like

    Reply

    1. Oh my goodness, Mosckerr! Can you stop spamming threads with impossibly long off-topic screeds? Clarissa asked about Florida–not Israel. If you think Florida is uninteresting, just skip replying. For the longest time, I honestly thought you were a bot because your posts are so long, non-sensical, and off topic. I agree that the Israeli-Hamas conflict is an important issue that has global repercussions. But your posts are not educational. They just seem unhinged.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Clarissa addressed a crisis that touched her. As an Israeli I relate by addressing a crisis that touches me. My grandson visited me today. In a couple of weeks he goes to the Lebanon front.

        Like

        Reply

        1. And what you wrote in this reply would have been an more effective and compelling response than anything you initially wrote. I’m not sure what your goal as a writer is here. If your goal is to emote and pontificate, you are accomplishing your goals. But if your goal is to be read and to promote Israel’s cause, you are going about it the wrong way. I skip reading nearly all of your replies–especially when they get that lengthy and are so clearly off topic. I suspect that I’m not the only one who skips reading them. And you put a lot of time into them. I guess you want to be read?

          If you do want people to read your replies, as a writing teacher, I suggest the following simple formula: 1) connect quickly to the topic of Clarissa’s post, 2) make a logical transition to a topic that you want to write about, 3) keep your entire reply to two paragraphs (three paragraphs at the utmost).So, looking at what you wrote above and at Clarissa’s original post, I propose the following would have been a more effective reply:

          “I don’t have any information about Florida. I’m sorry it’s weighing on your mind and on the minds of your readers. The crisis in Israel continues to worry me. My grandson visited me today. In a couple of weeks he goes to the Lebanon front. Please keep him in your thoughts.”

          Had you written those three lines instead of your original screed, you would have invited engagement and interest in Israel. Remember: less is more sometimes. And in the genre of blogging/replies, a casual, personal style often suits best.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. That’s your choice I do the same as I skim across WordPress blogs. Israel confronts a crisis of a multifront war. My people could lose this war! Am strongly rooting for Trump to retake the White House. I trust President Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

    1. –On the plus side, the latest bulletin had the windspeeds down to 130. That’s great news. Storm surge is still going to be a beast: that’s baked into the cake now, and nothing will change it. But the lower the windspeed at landfall, the less of the electrical grid will have to be reinstalled from scratch, fewer roofs will blow off, and the nastier effects will be confined to a narrower strip along the coast, not reach *quite* so far inland.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. I saw online that half of the state evacuated. I’m praying for no fatalities but even so the destruction will be vast. What a calamity.

      At least DeSantis is ahead of the event with the preparedness. He’s a talented executive, so let’s hope it’s not as terrible as it can be.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Keep in mind that for a lot of us, “evacuated” just means we drove 20 or 30 miles inland and will be imposing on friends and relatives for 24 hours 🙂 At the current 130, everything not right on the coast is relatively safe, as long as it’s not a flood zone. These days it’s a few minutes and a couple of websites to find an elevation and a flood risk for any given address. Yay technology. There’s still a nonzero chance of localized tornados or a tree falling on you, but other than that, it’s mostly inconvenience. Storm surge is the real killer.

        Really glad to hear that people are going with the evac orders. Lowlying areas really do need to get out. People with electricity-dependent medical devices or medications that must be refrigerated, or who are just medically fragile, need to leave– the power could be out for weeks. People in older mobile homes and RVs need to go, and inland flood zone people should get to higher ground. But 130 means everybody else will likely be OK, even if they stay. Roof damage, downed trees, etc. will be a nuisance for months, but it’ll be not-apocalyptic, outside the storm surge zones. I do worry about all the people recently moved here, who may not know they are *in* a surge zone, but it looked like the local authorities down there were driving around those neighborhoods with loudspeakers, as well as the usual knocking on doors, to make sure we didn’t miss anybody who, say, couldn’t drive or didn’t have a ride. There are always a few stubborn idjits who stay anyway. Not for lack of trying. Legally, you can’t force them to leave.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. –not trying to minimize that, but at the same time, Port Charlotte, Punta Gorda, those areas have been socked more than once in the last ten years, which means they haven’t forgotten, they’re paying attention, they *know* what’s likely to flood, and most of the really terrible construction has already been blown apart. They’re way better situated than Tampa/St.Pete, which somehow, magically, dodges all the really big ones. That space between Tampa bay and Port Charlotte– Sarasota etc– is at least somewhat protected by barrier islands.

          Like

          Reply

        2. “evacuated” just means we drove 20 or 30 miles inland and will be imposing on friends and relatives for 24 hours”

          I’m not sure if there’s any relationship dynamic that is more Florida than that…. I remember a few times my mother taking me and my brother out of school to drive a couple of hours north (but much farther inland) to relatives to wait out storms.

          As a kid who didn’t necessarily realize the dangers it was actually a lot of fun…

          Some years later I was riding with my father around town before a (not too significant) storm hit and I still remember the… buzz in the air from everyone’s adrenaline being pumped up while taping or boarding up windows. Rather than go inland me and my brother over-nighted it in the office of a relative who worked in the strongest building in the county… the courthouse.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. 🙂

            When I was a kid, we’d evacuate 20 miles inland to my relatives’ cinderblock vacation cottage. Very high ground, but we didn’t even leave the county. During an evac, that 30-minute drive could take four hours. It was very holiday-like. We’d take our pets, maybe pick up a great-aunt or a neighbor, play ping-pong until the power went out and then card games by oil-lamp-light, stay up late (once the wind kicks in, nobody’s sleeping: it would HOWL through the space between houses: WooooooOOOOOoooo!)

            Nostalgia!

            Next day you get to truck back into town and find out if there are any trees on your roof. My parents’ house always dodged that, but one year a giant pine tree in our yard snapped off and crushed our neighbors’ carport. Weirdly, their car under it was fine– roof stopped about four inches from the top of the car.

            Michael was different. That escalated so fast. We tossed the kids in the car at midnight and went to visit family across the state line! To this day, they remember it as a long vacation from schoolwork, and a fun extended visit with cousins and grandparents. Kind of apocalyptic for the rest of us.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Florida is wonderful otherwise but the constant threat of storms, I don’t know. It would be way too heavy for me.

              Poor Canadian relatives who don’t understand US geography are begging me to evacuate. I haven’t been able to explain why I’m not doing it.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

              1. 😀

                Every place has its risks. The risks you grow up with never seem as terrible as those you didn’t. I find earthquakes very unnerving, tornadoes would make me very very nervous, and I’d be very hesitant to live in the mountains or in any river basin because of the flood risk.

                Compared to those things… hurricanes have a lot going for them. They politely give you a few days’ notice, the risks are often things you can mitigate or plan around: one of the things I look at when we are trying to find a house to buy is, proximity to the water, and elevation. I would not live in a house situated less than 25ft above sea level, or in a flood zone, for any price. Not worth it. That’s a choice we are able to make. People pay extra to be close to the water, for reasons I can’t comprehend. You can have large trees removed if they are too close to your house. You can get permanent storm shutters for your windows– fancy rollup ones, nicer-looking Bermuda shutters, or just corrugated metal you can screw onto your window frames and remove later. Once you’re away from the immediate coast… a hurricane mostly just makes a mess, knocks out the power for a while, and is moderately inconvenient. The really big ones don’t happen that often, and rarely in the same place twice in living memory.

                Like

              2. “Florida is wonderful otherwise but the constant threat of storms”

                Hurricanes are actually not that bad… they give you a couple days warning so you can decided what option to take. Head for the hills, crash at inland family/friends, flee north, batten down the hatches and ride it out. By the time they arrive it’s usually a bit of an anti-climax (except for some really bad mf’ers happens only about every 20-40 years).
                Tornadoes are much scarier since they happen fast and there’s not much you can do to prepare and (in Florida) not much really safe shelter since basements are a no go (try to dig a basement and it turns into an indoor swimming pool).
                I was always more afraid of tornadoes than hurricanes.

                Liked by 1 person

        3. It’s like those few exasperating people who refuse to evacuate from the areas that Russians are leveling to the ground. Rescuers go in, time and again, begging them to leave but they just wouldn’t. I understand that if you’ve lived there your whole life it’s very hard to get up and go but it’s terrifying to observe them sitting there, about to get killed.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  3. “the really terrible construction has already been blown apart”

    I remember the 1982 ‘no name storm’ that devastated beach properties in SW Florida blowing out the sand they were built on.

    That was the closest the area I lived in came to flooding… the canals were nipping at the banks and the ditches were all overflowing with water.

    When I was a kid the water from the harbor occasionally rose and washed through the streets of our small downtown area… great fun for kids. Then they built a seawall and that was the end of that.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to methylethyl Cancel reply