So why did they bring the rules change for the filibuster and not this exactly? I don't see how anyone could argue this in good faith.
roguetrick
The Senate could change the rules at any time.
It's very politically divided, and almost impossible to form a coalition. You can just look at their history to see as much. It's a government built on the coalition of fascists, liberals, and socialists. Very diverse in thought.
Since the Likud was the only one that could prove it could form a government...
Seriously, partisan operations tend to be war crimes. That doesn't mean that shooting the entire village is now acceptable. You get hanged for that.
Importantly mostly the people stayed after those conquests though. They were given Greek influence, then Christianized by the Roman empire and held the major Christian center of Antioch, then they were culturally Arabized by Muslim conquests. The main caveats to that rule were the Roman Jewish deportations. Largely, the DNA of the ancient peasants and the current inhabitants is the same.
Yeah, the crusaders were the first ones that weren't interested in greater Syria/the greater Levant (If you don't include the Phoenician city states I guess), stupidly enough for them. It's a fine bit of territory to control if you can actually take the whole thing because of natural chokepoints, but otherwise you'll lose eventually. Ottomans just went back to what the Romans did and governed it as Syria.
Sure, you can always be hated by everybody. That's generally my MO in most things. I think Hamas is a terrorist Islamic group and the Likud are ur-fascists.
Well, nobody felt that.
That's called a condom catheter. Don't hook it up to suction.