placnx

I believe that there was a thread a few years ago that advised that the usufruct should not be givien by one's wife. That in that case it could be overridden. So your suggestion makes sense, except that then the land office might think that you paid the money for the land.

After seeing this BBC Security Brief analysis, I agree with you that mines are a problem, especially based on the currents in the Strait of Hormuz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJeIosDnhQo I was thinking that the naval ships moving at slow speed would lack maneuverability in this case. Also, it would be even easier for the Iranians to concert with multiple simultaneous launches. the above link shows the US escort vessel, but explains that there are on 3 available in the Middle East (out of 28), not encough to escort 60 tankers per day.

The anti-ship cruise missiles are hidden, just come out to fire, so are difficult to eliminate. This BBC analysis broatcast today was very informative:

Our own Genghis Khan, or antipresident.

Before that oil prices were up 25% or more, so 6% is just a gyration. If this war continues a week or ten days with the Strait shut, producers will have to stop production in their fields, and it will take a while to restart, besides which old fields may then have reduced pressure. Looking forward a few years, the shale boom will run down, so US domestic production will decline.

Mines are not the problem. Thousands of anti-ship missiles are a threat to deter shipowners from taking chances, not to mention drones.

It would be especially costly if a slow-moving escort destroyer was sunk by anti-ship missiles.

Apparently she was promoting herself in ads with taxpayers money. She had her own agenda, not Trump's agenda, so she was fired!!!

Seriously, the Likudniks would love to control, but behind the scenes.

Netanyahu has been egging the US on for over 30 years to do something about Iran's nuclear program, but until Trump he never had a president that would slavishly execute his agenda. https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-netanyahus-rhetoric-on-irans-nuclear-ambitions In 1996 a group of Washington neocons presented Netanyahu with a plan for deposing Saddam Hussein. This plan eventually became the plan implemented by George Bush, 2nd, in 2003. Each time the idea was to damage a country's politics and economy to the point that it could not oppose Israel's agenda in the Middle East: Jordan/Egypt 1967, Lebanon 1978. 1982-2000, 2006, 2023-6, Syria 1967, 2025, Iraq 2003. Now in addition to regime change, Trump wants a say in the new leadership. There is talk of sending Iranian Kurd exile forces into the ethnic Kurdish areas of western Iran. What they might be able to do is create a (probably temporary) breakaway Kurdish state. That would be quite inpopular with the Turkish, Iraqi, and Syrian governments, and while it would promote instability in Iran and those other countries, it would not have the means to overturn the government in Teheran. But creating chaos and instability in the region is Netanyahu's game. Trump sounds like an 1880 imperial era throwback. Trump has difficulty explaining his agenda in attacking Iran. It's because he can't keep up with Netanyahu's agenda, which is not being fully disclosed to Trump before it happens. Then Trump has to scramble to appear that what has happened was his own plan for X reason, that later appears inconsistent with the facts, so then we hear the Y reason, and on and on.

Israel's attack on Lebanon was planned long before and just awaited some action by Hezbollah to provide a justification, however feeble. Hezbollah's engagement with the Lebanese government not to get involved in an Iran conflict presumably was not made covering a scenario where their principal spiritual leader would be assassinated.

In 1350 BC, there was no Kingdom of Israel (a/k/a Samaria), either. That appeared around the 10th C BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region) As for the Egyptian Empire, it died out around 1100 BC. The origin of the name Palestine goes back long before the Romans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine

The problem with "Basic Laws" is that they can be overturned by a majority vote in the Knesset, which is what Netanyahu et al were trying to do to undermine the somewhat independent Supreme Court in 2023. The provisions of a constitution should be difficult to amend, to provide social and political stability. As I mentioned before, the 1948 Declaration of Independence envisaged a constitution that would provide equal rights for all citizens.

You are getting to the heart of the impunity with which IDF and settlers are committing genocide to this day, not to mention the crimes of the last 100 years in a throwback of 19th C colonialsm.

Israel is an apartheid state. The apartheid situation in Israel itself is less onerous than in the Occupied Territories, but Israeli Palestinians don't enjoy equal rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid The problem is that non-observant Jews evidently cannot opt out of a religious edict, a Jewish analogue of Sharia law, when they want to change marriage status.