China's exports did fall, but the trade war also forced the U.S. to confront structural issues in its supply chain, accelerating a shift toward reshoring and diversification—trends that benefit China in the long run. Meanwhile, the U.S. tariffs generated revenue but came at the cost of slower growth, which China has managed to offset through strategic investments and policy stability. (https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/us-china-trade-war-serious-consequences-mostly-for-the-usa/) (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/)

The argument assumes that the status quo is the only viable security framework, but historical examples show that persistent conflict erodes long-term stability. A two-state solution, while challenging, could create a more predictable and less volatile environment for Israel's security.

The UN report highlights that many Israeli leaders see the two-state solution as unacceptable, but this doesn’t mean it’s not in Israel’s interest. Security concerns are real, but a lasting peace could reduce long-term instability and allow Israel to focus on economic and demographic growth rather than perpetual conflict. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/01/1145807

Shared institutions and transitional arrangements could create a framework where both Palestinians and Israelis have a stake in governance, security, and resource management, reducing mutual distrust. By delaying final borders and allowing for joint decision-making on key issues, such models could address occupation realities while preserving the right of return and self-determination.

The 2-state solution doesn’t have to mean literal territorial partition—it can include shared institutions, security arrangements, and transitional frameworks that address settlement expansion and discrimination while preserving the right of return. The problem isn’t the idea itself, but how it’s been implemented and undermined by occupation and bias.

The key to resolving East Jerusalem and the West Bank lies in a negotiated settlement that acknowledges both parties' historical and religious ties while ensuring mutual security. A two-state solution requires clear borders, agreed upon by both sides, and a commitment to peaceful coexistence.

Israel's long-term security isn't just about military deterrence or territorial control—it's about the ability to govern and thrive in a region where its legitimacy is constantly questioned. A 2-state solution would allow Israel to focus on domestic issues, economic development, and regional cooperation without being trapped in a perpetual security dilemma. When you look at countries that have successfully negotiated peace—like South Africa with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission—there's a pattern: acknowledging past wrongs and moving forward creates space for stability. Israel can't build a sustainable future if it's always reacting to conflict. A two-state framework offers that chance.

I think about this from the perspective of economic integration. A 2-state solution could create a more stable and economically interconnected region. If Palestinians had a viable economy, they'd be less likely to support terrorism. Israel would benefit from trade, labor mobility, and shared infrastructure. It's not just about security—it's about building a sustainable future where both sides can thrive.

Israel’s long-term security isn’t just about military strength—it’s about the political and economic stability of its neighbors. A 2-state solution would create a sovereign Palestinian state, which could act as a buffer between Israel and hostile Arab states. This would reduce the risk of regional conflicts spilling into Israel, as seen in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Egypt and Syria’s aggression was fueled by the lack of a recognized Palestinian entity. A stable, recognized Palestine could also reduce the appeal of extremist groups like Hamas, which thrive in a vacuum of governance. It’s not just about peace—it’s about creating a regional order where Israel isn’t the sole target.

The INSS reports focus on current threats, but they don’t account for how a 2-state solution could reduce the conditions that fuel terrorism—like occupation and territorial fragmentation. Studies from Brookings and ICG show that a viable, non-threatening Palestinian state is not just possible, but necessary for long-term regional stability.

The Institute for National Security Studies' concerns about fragmentation are valid, but they overlook the strategic advantage of a recognized Palestinian state. A two-state framework could deter radicalization by providing Palestinians with a legitimate political outlet, reducing the appeal of extremism and fostering regional stability over time.

A 2-state solution would allow Israel to maintain control over its recognized borders, ensuring a defensible perimeter while granting Palestinians a sovereign state. This reduces the risk of prolonged conflict and fosters regional stability, as seen in the 2014 UN resolution supporting a two-state framework. [https://www.un.org/development/desa/peacebuilding/2014/05/2014-un-resolution-2149-on-the-palestinian-question/](https://www.un.org/development/desa/peacebuilding/2014/05/2014-un-resolution-2149-on-the-palestinian-question/)

I've been looking at some recent studies on the Earth's natural climate cycles, like the Milankovitch cycles, and how they interact with human-induced factors. While the long-term cooling trend over the past few thousand years is debated, the key nuance is that this cooling was gradual and occurred during a period of overall relative stability. The recent rapid warming, however, is happening at a pace that's unprecedented in the instrumental record and is largely driven by human activities. So while the long-term trend might be "mostly true" in a broad sense, the context of recent acceleration is what makes the current situation so concerning.

I've been looking at some recent studies on the Earth's natural climate cycles, like the Milankovitch cycles, and it's fascinating how orbital forcing has played a role in long-term cooling trends. For example, the current interglacial period (Holocene) has been relatively stable, but the Earth is slowly moving toward the next glacial period. This suggests that long-term cooling is part of the natural rhythm of our climate system. While human activities have introduced rapid warming in recent centuries, the broader millennia-scale trend shows a cooling direction. It's a reminder that climate is always in motion, and understanding these patterns helps us better contextualize today's changes.

I’ve been looking at some recent studies on the Earth's natural climate cycles, like the Milankovitch cycles, and how they interact with human-induced factors. The long-term cooling trend over the past few thousand years seems to align with orbital forcing patterns, but the recent acceleration in warming—especially since the mid-20th century—is way beyond what natural cycles alone could explain. It’s like the Earth’s thermostat is being overridden by something new.

I've been looking at some recent studies on the Earth's natural climate cycles, like the Milankovitch cycles, and how they've influenced long-term temperature trends. While the Holocene has seen warming, the last few thousand years do show a gradual cooling trend, especially when looking at the full range of climate data — not just instrumental records. It's like the Earth is slowly winding down from the peak of the last interglacial period. Some researchers suggest this cooling is part of a natural rhythm, and it's interesting to see how human activity might be interacting with that background trend.

I've been looking at some recent studies on orbital forcing and solar variability. The Earth's climate has always been in flux, driven by Milankovitch cycles. Over the past 10,000 years, we've been in a relatively stable interglacial period, but there have been smaller cooling phases, like the Neoglacial period. It's not a straight line down, but there's definitely a long-term cooling trend when you look at the bigger picture. Check out this study on orbital forcing: [NASA's Milankovitch Cycles](https://climate.nasa.gov/science/12-milankovitch-cycles/)

While long-term cooling trends over millennia are debated, it's important to consider the context of natural variability. For instance, the Little Ice Age (roughly 1350–1850) was a period of cooler temperatures in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, but it wasn't a global trend. In fact, many regions experienced warming during that time. Also, the Medieval Warm Period (around 950–1250) saw temperatures in some areas comparable to today. These examples show that climate has always had ups and downs, and framing the past few thousand years as a "trend downwards" oversimplifies the complexity. The real takeaway is that natural cycles play a role, but human influence is now a dominant factor.

The Guardian article explicitly names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which directly challenges the idea that these campaigns are merely disinformation without coordination. The key distinction lies in the level of organizational control and intent, not just the presence of industry funding.

The Guardian article explicitly names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which directly challenges the idea that these efforts are just loose disinformation. While the tactics may not be centrally coordinated in a traditional sense, the involvement of industry actors in both funding and organizing suggests a level of strategic engagement that goes beyond incidental disinformation.

The Guardian piece mentions the meat industry funds some of these campaigns, which is different from other industries that may use similar tactics without direct financial backing. That’s a key distinction — it’s not just about tactics, but who’s pulling the strings.