Yeah my favorite is people who say things like “I’m the 1940s USA/Canada/aus/etc fought fascism, what happened”?
No, they fought GERMANY. tons of those soldiers came back home and became John Birchers or klansmen or Christofascist evangelicals any other kind of fascist.
Shooting nazis does not an anti fascist make, perplexingly.
Also, the US was VERY hesitant to enter the European war. There was a lot of support for the Nazis in the US. From some high ranking people. Like the first director of the OSS and the Dulles brothers (instrumental in forming the CIA and NATO). They wanted a separate peace with Germany, and to enter the European war against the Soviets. But luckily FDR was unmovable in his support of the Soviets against the Nazis.
The latter point is not particularly surprising. Many people fight in wars because they have no choice or out of patriotism, or a combination of those plus other factors.
Another important point is that there are varying degrees of racism. Some people might have the badly mistaken view that a certain skin color is better or worse at certain jobs, for example, but that doesn’t mean that they would endorse genocide.
Another important point is that there are varying degrees of racism.
No, not really. You could, if you really wanted to, distinguish between two different “wings” or “traditions” of white supremacist ideology (which, of course, is the only “racism” there actually is) - the eliminationist and the exploitative.
They are not mutually exclusive - the Nazis, for instance, followed both policies when they exploited Slavic people for labor with the full understanding that all Slavic people would be eliminated as soon as their labor was no longer needed by the (so-called) “master race”.
Anti-fascist rhetoric was clear and popular, even in nations that would be arguably considered fascist themselves today, like Segregation Era America and the British Empire.
Tons of those soldiers might have continued being a racist after being drafted to fight Nazis, but just as many learned exactly what path they were following and changed course.
FDR’s political coalition even pretty much directly evolved into the Civil Rights Movement.
The simple reality is that 20th century politics was never simple but progressive thought thoroughly won out over ideologies of hate and actively worked to undo the centuries of damage done by colonial era white supremacist thought.
It was hardly a perfect process, and it’s one that continues to this day, but to pretend it was simply just nations butting heads to the common man is dangerously revisionist.
The allied nations fought fascism. They knew what it was, could describe it better than many do today, and the leadership was clear in their opposition, even if often confusingly hypocritical, and often beset by internal opposition. That not every person in 1940 was completely on board with it is simply the human condition.
It’s been smoldering and festering in the background for so long the internet just gave us a clear view into it. If they really think there’s a resurgence they’ve never been anywhere rural for the past 40 years as a minority.
Nope, it comes from Old French which used the same “s” as Latin whereas the “z” is greek. The French standardised to the “s” in the late 1600 which informed the English which had bounced between the Greek and Latin but formalised on “ise” not “ize”.
And why, dare I ask, should the French form of the suffix be prioritized over the Greek? Latin actually used the Z when the suffix was borrowed from Greek. In French, the letter Z essentially didn't exist, as even in Latin it was (nearly?) exclusively used for Greek loans. As French evolved from vulgar and unwritten Latin, the Z was replaced by S, which is pronounced as /z/ when between vowels anyway.
So again, why exactly must English hold the etymologically corrupted French form above the actual original one?
It’s not about what must be done. It’s about what has been done. Language isn’t about how things should have been. One person rarely gets much of a say in how language will develop. If you try to hold language up to best possible practices, you will be disappointed by the actual outcome every time.
word-forming element used to make verbs, Middle English -isen, from Old French -iser/-izer, from Late Latin -izare, from Greek -izein, a verb-forming element denoting the doing of the noun or adjective to which it is attached.
The variation of -ize and -ise began in Old French and Middle English, perhaps aided by a few words (such as surprise, see below) where the ending is French or Latin, not Greek. With the classical revival, English partially reverted to the correct Greek -z- spelling from late 16c. But the 1694 edition of the authoritative French Academy dictionary standardized the spellings as -s-, which influenced English.
In Britain, despite the opposition to it (at least formerly) of OED, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Times of London, and Fowler, -ise remains dominant. Fowler thinks this is to avoid the difficulty of remembering the short list of common words not from Greek which must be spelled with an -s- (such as advertise, devise, surprise). American English has always favored -ize. The spelling variation involves about 200 English verbs.
So in 1694 “-ise” was deemed correct in French, but English has always bounced around between the two spellings, both before and since then. American English has always favoured “-ize” spellings. It’s not really reasonable to try to impose the standards of French in 1694 on English globally in 2023.
You’re entitled to your hill, but as linguistically correct as you may be, linguistics take a back seat to common usage and national variance.
Nationalized and nationalised are both English terms. Nationalized is predominantly used in 🇺🇸 American (US) English ( en-US ) while nationalised is predominantly used in 🇬🇧 British English (used in UK/AU/NZ) ( en-GB ).
Ah, the cruel barbs of irony. Your English is actually quite atrocious.
There wasn’t a proper sentence in that reply. There was hardly a coherent thought. Perhaps it is time to put your phone down, finish your drink, and go watch a sport.
Oh, get bent, you bell-end!There is no point in trying to be nice and discuss things on here any more; let’s be honest. You lot just love to circle-jerk how much you hate Musk to the detriment of everything else. God buoye ond god spede.
You thought you were smart to correct what you thought was a mistake. You were mistaken, because you're less smart than you think you are, and not smart enough to know that you don't know that much.
Rather than admit that you're less smart than you think you are, you've doubled down and become rude about it.
Vanity, it's the devil's favourite sin.
Obviously, it's pathetic. We've all been there, but you really should learn when to walk away rather than doubling down.
Which is literally why “literally” and “figuratively” as practically interchangable due to misuse of ‘literally’ as hyperbole. Its figuratively killing me.
Nope. OP is insisting on something despite being wrong and then saying people are toxic. Either they are a weak troll, or actually believe what they write. Either situation deserves the response they got
People learn words in different fashions. In Jeopardy (an American quiz show) they accept written answers in the last round that are spelled incorrectly as long as it’s clear, phonetically, what they were trying for.
This is done in part because some people learn words by hearing them and not seeing them written, just like some people might have read a word but not know how to pronounce it.
Did you comment this to be superior or be helpful because it comes across as superior.
While I agree that NASA shouldn’t have had any funding cut, supporting a privatized space industry isn’t a bad thing on its own.
But giving Elon Musk a defense contract was a fucking stupid idea.
If the government wants a private citizen’s data and resources, they can contract with them for it. I find it bizarre that you think the government should just be able to take whatever it wants from people.
If you give them that power, some day, the cause will not be noble.
On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote: “My deepest hope is that Americans of all political persuasions can unite and agree that: 1. Jesus Christ is Lord 2. Satan is evil.”
Definition
Iowa Code ¬ß 708.3 defines hate crimes as criminal offenses committed with the intent of intimidating or coercing someone due to prejudice against a group of people based on their ‚race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, or sexual orientation.‚ Such hate crimes include both physical and verbal acts of aggression, property damage, and threats of harm.
Types of Charges
Under Iowa law, the scope of behavior considered to be a hate crime includes, but is not limited to, assaults, aggravated assaults, stalking, criminal mischief, destruction of property, and intimidation. The degree of seriousness of an offense can increase if it has been determined to be a hate:based crime. This can occur if such motivation can be demonstrated; this determination is normally made by prosecutors. If a criminal charge meets the criteria of an Iowa hate crime, the offense can be charged as a separate hate crime.
Aggravating Factors
If there is sufficient evidence to support the presence of hate:based motivations in an offense, the charge may be upgraded to a more serious offense. The possible upgrades include assigning a simple misdemeanor or aggravated misdemeanor offense, instead of a simple misdemeanor, or increasing the level of felony charge by one or two levels. For example, if a suspect committed a burglary in a home and it can be clearly established that the offense was motivated by racism, the charge can be enhanced to a Class C Felony. Alongside such upgrades, hate:based crimes can attract additional conditions during sentencing.
While it’s wonderful she finally started questioning things, she deserves to feel way more than embarrassed for all the time she wasted and all the lies she repeated while believing it was a hoax.
Especially considering she was a science teacher before she finally changed her mind. Think of how many years she spent teaching misinformation. Is an “I’m sorry” and being embarrassed enough to make up for that, really?
It took her until well after “Climategate” to begin questioning it, and it seems like she listened to Rush Limbaugh religiously.
I’m glad she changed her mind, but this story is not inspiring to me. It’s anger-inducing that we have to fucking free these people from the mental fucking cages they built for themselves. Her being an absolute fucking disgrace to science education who woke up and was like “Oh shit, I don’t want to be an absolute fucking disgrace anymore” isn’t fucking newsworthy or inspiring. It’s bare minimum expectations of a decent fucking human being.
No amount of apologies will be enough from people who spread this religiously-backed bullshit misinformation. It has held back human society for fucking hundreds of years now.
People should have woken the fuck up when Galileo was punished by the church for promoting Heliocentrism. The Inquisition basically threatened him with death for telling the truth. Why the fuck people still follow this religious horseshit is a mystery to me other than people like this chucklefuck parrot it half her life.
Yes. There is no excuse for someone with the science training to believe these things. She was either a very weak person or the program she studied in wasn’t very strong. Either way, although it’s good to model perspective change, this isn’t the example we need.
TBF there are a lot of unintuitive things going on with the science of climate change, such as the precise role of greenhouse gas absorption/emission spectra in trapping heat, that even with a strong general science background it’s not immediately obvious what the driving factors are.
Add to that the (deliberate) but plausible sounding misinformation and you have a deadly cocktail of not quite correct pseudoscience to drown in.
I understand being a climate skeptic, up until a certain point in time. There were still a lot of things that were unclear and the reporting was muddled and there was lots of conflicting information floating and even in supposedly well informed publications. But there really is no excuse after 2004 or so.
I agree with you. In fact we had important data about this going back to the early 1900s.
But convincing people of it back then was tough going. Even scientists. It only really started being obviously undeniable (which is a higher bar than merely very likely) in the early 1990s. And we didn’t always do a very good job selling it to be honest.
They were publishing and discussing these things in the 70’s. Not big oil secret memos - published articles, tv shows, magazines, all that media could carry had it consistently represented over fifty years ago all the way through to today.
Tree huggers. Disgusting hippies. Loonies. That’s all the thanks these people could muster. Yeah, some people are not going to accept a “whoopsie. Gosh i was wrong” and just forget it. With good reason.
Also, we are talking about brainwashing. Aum Shinrikyo successfully turned medical doctors from the best university in Japan into cult religion leaders to join the leadership that killed, injured and disabled subway passengers with sarin, among others murdered in different ways.
Why is this an excuse? I don’t even know what my grandparents did for a living. Just because they may have been tailors doesn’t mean I would have any special knowledge passion or feeling on fashion or the clothing industry.
I don’t even know what my grandparents did for a living.
I mean, if it was your great grandparents that’s different, but your grandparents?
Honestly that’s a little bit sad that you don’t even know that much about them.
Also, you not knowing or caring doesn’t mean that’s the case for everyone…though it does shed light on why you may not understand the significance of coal mining on the coal region of the US.
lol, no. Continuing to not support actual science because of some bullshit reason like my grandparents had a job like 70 years ago is ignorant plain and simple. There is no amount of culture or tradition that can justify that.
On one hand I agree but on the other if we’re jerks about people coming to our side it will make those considering it hesitant. Still not an excuse, but it will keep some on the wrong side longer
I agree, but I don’t think we have to be jerks to them to make them understand that saying sorry and trying to change isn’t enough to counteract what they’ve already done, and they owe society a lot more than that. That’s not being jerks, that’s being real.
If they can’t handle that measured critique, it’s because they refuse to take any kind of self-responsibility, which speaks to them still being on the wrong side of history.
but I don’t think we have to be jerks to them to make them understand that saying sorry and trying to change isn’t enough to counteract what they’ve already done
Who gets to decide what’s enough? You? Me? Never mind the fact that the article says what she’s done.
How about we let those people who turn their beliefs around decide what’s enough instead.
What do you want from her, exactly? For her to live the rest of her life in shame? Kill herself? Feel bad about it until she gets tired of feeling that way and looks for some way to lash out at those insisting she needs to feel bad forever?
Don’t make picking the right choice another bad option.
To move away from those people meant leaving behind an entire community at a time when I didn’t have many friends.
I agree we should just be mean to these people. They clearly are using logic to reach their conclusions and not just going with it because they feel the need to belong in a community . And knowing that they will 100% be mocked for life for changing definitely doesn’t make leaving harder.
While true, the fact is that we’re in immediate danger from the effects of climate change, and if we push away those willing to change by shaming their past rather than celebrating their willingness to change we’re probably just hurting our cause.
For as much as some of us want to emphasize the logic and practicality of their position on the issue, it sure is strange when they want more people to see things their way, yet also want to reject them when they do.
From that point, it's like I've started a new life. I learned about a non-partisan group called Citizens' Climate Lobby, which advocates for climate solutions. I led their North Georgia chapter for a while, and I still volunteer and lobby with them.
I'm also part of the National Center for Science Education, using physical science concepts to teach climate change to my teenage students.
Always worth reading the article before writing a comment.
Yeah this is what gets me about the young turks guy that wants to run for office. Its like its great you came to the light in the last decade or so but you spend a goodly amount of time shilling for the other side. Its fine for you to shill for us but that is as far as I trust your judgement.
not just conservative but ultraconservative libertarian with aweful views on women. He did not go straight to ultra liberal. He went indenpendent for awhile and then eventually way left. I more jaded person than I might suppose he saw no future for a person of his background on the right but saw lots of opportunity on the left.
I used to love TYT, but eventually their whole formula just felt really off-putting to me. I still agree with their takes on most things, at least Anna and Cenk, but I can’t tolerate watching them much anymore. One thing that always drove me crazy, and lots of people do this these days, was when they would follow their opinions with the word “right” while subtlety shaking their head in the affirmative. It might not even be a conscious thing they’re doing, and I probably agreed with their opinion a lot of the time, but it feels brain-washy to me when anyone does it. And then Anna just loses her composure all the damn time, at least when I was watching it regularly, like she can’t talk about so many different subjects without exploding.
yeah from what I have seen I have been in agreement but in general I just don't get my news from video like that but seeing someones opinion once in awhile is nice. Honestly media types have to put out so much content to stay relevant that I just don't have the time. written word is concise and often I just want the facts (which seems almost impossible to get nowadays.)
Everytime I read an article like this, my immediate reaction is posting a comment expressing my disgust with the Israeli State’s actions and everytime I hesitate because I don’t want to suffer the inevitable wave of people defending the Israeli State’s actions as somehow justifiable because Hamas did something vile first.
It’s a continuing cycle of violence and the Israeli State holds a humongous power advantage. They don’t use that power disparity to deescalate and integrate the Palestinian people to prevent Hamas from having support. Instead they do shit like this where they drive Palestinians straight into Hamas’ hands, because the Palestinian people are given no other option to turn to.
Because I’m here to have constructive discussions? IDGAF about votes; I, unfortunately, give a fuck about having to deal with people like you and the above.
Your last point is why I feel like what Israel is doing is just straight up illogical, even from a purely selfish point of view. The only thing they are doing here is basically proving Hamas “right” in the eyes of many Gazans, and fueling a fervent desire for revenge. If someone living in Gaza wasn’t already a terrorist, they sure as hell are much much more likely to be one now.
Imagine how you would feel if your home and possibly moved ones were bombed like this, losing you everything or nearly everything you hold dear. You lose autonomy over your own life, you lose your independence and rights. I imagine it feels a lot like losing rights as a minority, or something like getting an abortion becoming illegal, turned to the extreme. And these things being threatened to be done to me already cause me to feel strong contempt against the perpetrators. If pushed far enough, things like this would cause me to become a “terrorist”, in the sense of being willing to strongly resist it in an attempt to maintain my rights and autonomy.
But of course, whether I would be called a terrorist or not depends on how it’s framed, and how much compassion or understanding people would give me. Hell, in the US LGBTQ+ activists, or anti-racist/anti-fascist activists are already called terrorists sometimes.
There are three lenses through which the Israeli government’s actions make sense:
They are supremacists who were looking for an excuse to escalate an ethnic cleansing they have no way to complete without a goddamn good framing for the Western press.
They’re a far right government looking to appease far right voters who only want to solve a blood conflict with more blood, and never by taking advantage of their superior position to force de-escalation. These are politicians merely trying to conserve their own seats, no matter ethical considerations or what’s good for their country.
Racism, ethnic supremacism, religious bigotry, emotional meltdowns and the unability to see a conflict in any other way than seeing you as the first and last victim are all great ingredients to enter into a spiral of terribly irrational decisions. All of these ingredients are present in the Israeli government and in a good portion of Israeli society.
They are tired of dealing with daily rocket attacks on their population centers and the killing of 1400 civilians made leaving a terrorist group in charge of the region untenable?
So instead Israel kills 11K, and counting, razing to the ground entire neighbourhoods, causing humanitarian catastrophe while refusing any mention of humanitarian ceasefire or even pauses to let aid inside the enclave.
How noble of them. And by looking at the numbers of casualties and injured on both sides you will see the big picture that this is happening for years and years.
First, there is zero information on the number of civilian deaths vs. Hamas deaths, they are all lumped together in that 10,000 number, so good job parroting Hamas propaganda. Second, here is what you sound like to me: “Thinking that murdering 500,000 innocent German civilians* is justified because the Nazi’s murdered/kidnapped a few Jews is psychotic. Get help.”
*The number killed in WW2, in case you’re wondering.
Contemporary historiography agrees that bombing civilian population during WWII didn’t contribute to actually winning the war, so congratulations on backing your psychotic position with your ignorance.
The religious have shown no Qualms with pushing their belief on society and taking away rights. They can’t complain if one day religion is banned, or guns
Their plan is to eliminate all Palestinians and take their land. The more each side escalates, the closer they can get to that; sure, some Israeli may die, but that gives them justification to exterminate scores of Palestinians every time.
In a discussion about Hamas vs Israel, they are saying they understand people resorting to terrorism because they sorta understand how it feels to have their human rights oppressed. I don’t think one can’t mention the irony that the main organisation which had to resort to terrorism in this conflict would not hesitate to kill the above poster for demanding exactly the human rights they cited.
There’s a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.
As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they’re likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?
So this isn’t me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don’t need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don’t feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.
The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it’s a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn’t make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.
But I was talking about the irony. It’s like if in your example someone would say they could imagine themselves joining a gang by comparing the life in the ghetto to the oppression they themselves felt because they couldn’t bring their puppy to school, but with the added spice that the real life gang the hypothetical discussion was originally about runs a side business of stealing, raping and skinning puppies.
I had read your initial comment as insinuating the previous commenter was supporting hamas, and when someone directly challenged you on it, you didn’t reject that accusation.
So if you just wanted to point out the irony, consider my comment as much a non sequitor as your comment on its irony, which is - I suppose - at least irony-adjacent in itself.
… the Israeli government “insist[s] on advertising and exaggerating its recent record on LGBT rights … to fend off international condemnation of its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people”.*
I think in the eyes of the Government it makes a lot of sense to act the way they do, it’s a great casus belli that has been dropped into their lap to ‘finally’ wipe out Gaza.
No, what Israel is doing makes sense from a strictly selfish point of view.
The question of ‘Why doesn’t Israel integrate the Palestinians?’ is a good one. The answer is numbers.
Israel was founded as a Jewish ethnostate. Those who have immigrated there have done so because they wanted to live in a Jewish ethnostate. So one of the core values of the country is that it is primarily a place for Jews.
If Israel absorbed the populations of Gaza and the West Bank into Israel, the Jewish population would become a minority in Israel if not immediately then within a generation.
I don’t agree with the idea of ethnostates in general and I do believe establishing Israel as one was a mistake.
… But if you imagine the viewpoint of someone who does want a Jewish ethnostate like so many in Israel you can see why this solution is a non starter.
May Hamas, the Israeli gov’t, and the IDF spend an eternity in Hell for the crimes they’ve committed against humanity and innocent civilians.
If the mods/admins want to ban me for saying that, feel free. I don’t want to be part to any group that supports and advocates for murders and war crimes.
At this point in time, I’m not sure that there is anything to be gained by discussing the conflict. It seems like people watching it see what they want, and refuse to consider that what they know or what they have been told about the conflict may not be accurate or factual.
Eh, I’m still learning a lot, and I’m sure other people are, too. Tbh, most people haven’t talked about this conflict, it was considered too “hot” and just a religious conflict. But I’ve learned more about the wrongs Israel has also committed from posts after the Oct 7 attack than I ever have before, and that it’s more than about religion, it’s about land and the quality of life for a peoples.
Although i wish more people would respond to criticism instead of downvote. For example, I think this person further up in the thread brings up a good point. At least this is better than just killing civilians unexpectedly and it lets them get at Hamas bases or rocket installations. Sucks that this person loses their house, but they need to get rid of Hamas who continues to threaten civilian lives, too. Maybe there’s some argument I’m not considering, but I wish people would say it instead of just downvote them.
He said, while doing the mental gymnastics to avoid remembering that Hamas does in fact use civilians buildings and the civilians inside as a human shields for his own subterranean tunnels under said civilians buildings.
Hundreds, possibly thousands of homes might have fighters underneath them. So they level square blocks to get to them. If only they had the best intelligence system in the world and could zero in on them.
The problem is that what he’s saying is not true at all. The IDF is just carpetbbombing Gaza at random. You can see the satalite images of Gaza being completely flattened. Even the Russians had far greater precision than this when attacking Ukraine.
The “Hamas forces them” narrative is always completely made up IDF propaganda. Israel tells people to go south. Then ISRAEL bombs the south. Palestinians don’t trust israel again (because they’re not morons). Then all the IDF trolls come in pretending Hamas forces innocent civilians to stay north.
Also the IDF intelligence recently bombed a car with a grandma and her 3 grandchildren in Lebanon. This should tell you how amazing their intelligence is before they decide to blow up a family.
Even the Russians had far greater precision than this when attacking Ukraine. ^^^[citation ^^^desperately ^^^needed]
… considering Russian doctrine is literally flatten the area with artillery, versus IDF precision airstrikes which the Russians were completely unable to do due to lack of air superiority let alone supremacy.
Carpet bombing is the complete and indiscriminate bombing of an area. I’ve seen no evidence of this. I have seen evidence - e.g. the above article as an excellent one - if precision bombing of multiple buildings across a wide area, whilst leaving neighbouring buildings relatively untouched.
I am not here to defend the IDF or the Israeli State, but using such obvious inaccuracies makes it an uphill struggle to appropriately criticise their real actions.
Your latter two points though I agree with broadly, though I don’t doubt Hamas does attempt to stop civilians from leaving conflict zones.
Both Hamas and the Israeli State are responsible for propogating this mess and both continue to try to do so, whilst the world watches and argues about who is the most responsible / who deserves support. Neither side gives a flying fuck about Palestinian or Israeli innocents, at least above and beyond that where they serve the goal of optics and support for wiping out the other side.
Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.
Netanyahu’s policy, however, was in direct opposition to most of the Israeli defense and security establishment, which viewed cooperation with the PA to be in Israel’s security interest. Fans of the Netflix series “Fauda” will recognize that cooperation. Most security experts felt the PA needed to be strengthened, not weakened.
Since returning to power in 2009, Netanyahu made no secret of his desire to keep Hamas and the PA apart for his own political purposes. For example, in 2017, the PA and Hamas were negotiating a possible takeover by the PA of civilian control of the Gaza Strip. Even though the United States and Egypt supported this reconciliation, Netanyahu was adamantly opposed — lest it empower the PA.
“Whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state,” The Jerusalem Post quoted Prime Minister Netanyahu as saying in 2019.
Prince Turki al-Faisal’s accusation against Israel comes days after a report by Reuters, citing a source privy to the matter, stated that Qatar’s financial aid to the Palestinian families in Gaza passes through Israel. The funds are transferred electronically from Qatar to Israel, following which Israeli and United Nations (UN) officials hand-carry the same over the border to the Gaza Strip.
Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel’s Shin Bet security service, told the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in 2013 that “if we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas’s strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister.”
In August 2019, former prime minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Army Radio that Netanyahu’s “strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking … even at the price of abandoning the citizens [of the south] … in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.”
Netanyahu’s current finance minister, West Bank settler Belazel Smotrich, explained the approach to Israel’s Knesset channel in 2015: “Hamas is an asset, and (Palestinian Authority leader) Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) is a burden.”
“But each time Netanyahu was asked, ‘Why don’t you negotiate with Abbas,’ he would say, ‘I can’t negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that doesn’t represent all Palestinians.’ And so he would use Hamas and this division to justify his absolute objection to any negotiated peace agreement.”
“Both Egypt and Qatar are angry with Hamas and planned to cut ties with them. Suddenly Netanyahu appears as the defender of Hamas, as though it was an environmental organization. This is a policy of submission to terror,” he said, adding that Israel was paying Hamas “protection money” to maintain the calm.
The prime minister also said that, “whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for” transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
See, on one hand that seems like a good idea, but whilst people can have reprehensible views on one topic they might also have reasonable contributions for another.
I did correct myself in that I only share his feelings as being persecuted. I clearly don’t know who is a minority in this debate and it was wrong to assume so.
If you look at the actions of Western media and governments, it’s pretty clear who is the minority. Palestinian activists have become much more vocal because they’re the minority, and no one is standing up for Gazans.
Regardless, you are not being persecuted, by saying so you’re trivializing those that are.
I agree with your statement and would retract the use of the word “persecuted”, as it is a matter of severity.
The inflicting of suffering, harassment, imprisonment, internment, fear or pain are all factors that may establish persecution, but not all suffering will necessarily establish persecution. The threshold of severity has been a source of much debate. Source: Wikipedia
Being ostracized in a Lemmy debate clearly isn’t persecution. It is a lack of pluralism or tolerance. Something you can criticize, but definitely isn’t something anyone owes anyone else here. It’s more of a matter of civility.
I corrected myself. You are not a minority in the world, as I don’t know the numbers and there are clearly a lot of sympathizers of the Palestinian cause in England, Spain, France and the US. I don’t even know what is going on in the rest of the world.
I can only empathize with the writer’s original emotion of feeling like a persecuted minority.
EDIT I retract my use of the word “Persecuted”. At best, this is lack of tolerance.
You’d think as an oppressed minority in the world, you’d be more outraged at Israel for their continued oppression of Palestinians. I know plenty of other Jews that feel this way.
Who says I don’t? Israel should definitely stop the settlements, push to join the Palestinians into the abrahamic accords, do what they can to bring actual peace instead of placating their religious fanatics for an easy vote.
I said I support Israel. In which I meant that I support Israel’s fight against Hamas. Yes, that entails hurting civilians. Yes, that is a sad state of affairs.
Almost no one out there is supporting Hamas, and if you unilaterally support Israel, you are anti-Palestinian. The fact that you think fighting Hamas includes indiscriminately bombing civilians shows you are in support of the ongoing genocide of an ethnic minority. And to call yourself a minority to try to gain sympathy is pathetic at best. The KKK is also a minority, so by your logic, we should all try to sympathize with their plight.
Almost no one out there is supporting Hamas, and if you unilaterally support Israel, you are anti-Palestinian.
You are willfully ignoring my last comment to give your strawman some hay.
The fact that you think fighting Hamas includes indiscriminately bombing civilians shows you are in support of the ongoing genocide of an ethnic
minority Strawman, I never said that the IDF should or is bombing indiscriminately. That is YOUR belief and you’re forcing it upon my words.
And to call yourself a minority to try to gain sympathy is pathetic at best.
Yet another misunderstanding. I didn’t say that to garner sympathy. I said that to make the point that this situation is just a classical case of the Majority’s tyranny. Granted, @risk suffered it worse, but the situation is just two sides of the same coin except I hang around in Lemmy and he hangs around in News websites.
The KKK is also a minority, so by your logic, we should all try to sympathize with their plight. Oh look, it’s your favorite rhetorical instrument. A strawman.
imagine hearing a neo nazi talk like you do. That’s how people are starting to associate Israel and their genocide.
You aren’t a persecuted minority, you’re just a person that willingly doesn’t want to understand so the hate can continue. What is happening is clearly not okay to anyone with even a hint of a moral compass.
I don’t think criticizing Israel is wrong here, nor do I wish for more civilian bloodshed. I do, however, see the end of the war with Hamas no longer being able to actively threat Israel a legitimate goal.
I brought up neo Nazis so you would understand that you are as much a persecuted minority as they are. By supporting Israel and not criticizing them loudly, you are encouraging more civilian bloodshed.
I never outright called you a nazi, but you are someone that supports a racist apartheid state that is currently in the middle of a genocide. It’s not a good look.
I know it’s hard to realize that all the truths you were raised on were lies, that even family members can be downright evil in what they say and hope for. You can either keep the cycle going or be an adult about it.
Notice how the comment you replied to, despite claiming they “always get hate” has nothing but supportive people upvoting, while you have 3 angry lions going for the neck because you dare to say you support Israel…
It has come too far to ever work. This community, @world, is no longer a place for biased news. I have had to block for a long time, but just came back to see if it was still such a mess. Turns out it is.
The worst thing is that the mods here are directly supporting this.
But look at our scores. We are voices that defies the echo chamber. Therefor we must be silenced.
It sucks, because I actually genuinely was happy for Lemmy, and had moved all my browsing over here. But alas, it seems that I can no longer use this platform for news. I will go back to having this community blocked.
PS) Try going to r/worldnews and Reddit, and check what the tone of audience is over there. Much more biased towards Israel, which is a no-brainer in my world.
After many years on r/worldnews I learned to spot the organic content from the astroturfed. Regulars were absolutely in no way pro Israel. It was always obvious when the brigade would show up
If you feel the need to express your unswerving support for the actions of the Israeli state under this news article, please tell us, how you see the mass destruction of civilian homes justified and necessary.
Usual disclaimer: I support neither side here. Both use horrible methods to achieve their goals and I hope for a ceasefire and improvement of both governments. From my limited information a revolution will likely be needed in case of Palestine, in Israel elections may suffice.
Never said it was unswerving, but I am hated for my opinion here. It is expected. How dare I justify murder, right?
Hamas is a terror organization. Hamas confirmed it will repeat it’s actions over and over until every jew is dead or driven from Israel. Hamas is still firing rockets at Israel and fighting the IDF. Hamas cynically uses the Geneva convention to shield itself as it commits war crimes.
It is true that the actions of the military kill innocents. I think it would’ve happened even without Hamas using them as human shields.
But should Israel simply stand idle as it’s citizens are slaughtered and kidnapped? If so, then why?
A permanent ceasefire that involves lifting the blockade. It worked in 2008 and 2012, except for the part where Israel didn't actually lift the blockade. Then a real two-state solution, none of this one state, one ghetto and a bunch of Bantustans nonsense Israel is doing. Remember: Peace only lost support in Palestine because it didn't work, not because Palestinians don't want peace.
To quote Bassem Youssef, terrorism is a virus, and to get rid of a virus you need to give the patient water, nutrients and rest. You don't get rid of viruses by hitting the patient with a sledgehammer.
Well, enforcing that will send Israel into a political turmoil since it was on the verge of a civil war before this war started. Also, interesting to note that 2008 was one of those rare times when Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t at power, but that doesn’t help the situation right now.
I also agree that you can’t remove Hamas with a sledgehammer. You can’t kill ideology with bullets. Israel isn’t claiming to be doing that right now. They declared they’re doing 2 things:
Returning the kidnapped Israelis home.
Disabling Hamas’ ability to strike.
Can’t ignore the last fact here though, that Benjamin Netanyahu wants a military regime once the war is over. You’d have to insane to support that.
Hmm, they managed to rescue 1/240 hostages for a month. Apparently that’s a pretty bad score. Not to mention that they are actively bombing tunnels where those hostages are thought to be held, so potentially they have killed some of them.
And by disabling Hamas ability to strike they killed ten thousand and counting people, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and caused unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe. Committed numerous war crimes and in general they showed to the world that they aren’t any better than Hamas if not worse.
Mind you by the time this all ends up the human cost and suffering inflicted on the regular civilians would be even greater. And I can tell you that’s a recipe for a disaster. You can’t dehumanize people and push them to the edge and then expect them to co-operate. I wonder what would be left of Gaza by the time Israel sate their bloodlust.
Returning the kidnapped Israelis home.
Disabling Hamas’ ability to strike.
And none of those will be accomplished with what Israel is doing. Hamas will need time to recover, but "being unable to strike" isn't happening. They have enough foreign support and a wealth of recruits.
I just want to ask also, how do you stop more Hamas by killing people? You don’t. The Hydra effect will guarantee that any one terrorist killed will breed two more. Yesterday my partner looked at me and said, “If Israel had killed my entire family, I would probably join Hamas”, and he’s an atheist and a Brit who learned most of what he learned about Hamas this year.
What Israel is doing is creating more opportunities for massacre in the future. I am not sure why, but I’m convinced there is a genocidal agenda here.
I don’t have a solution. I’m half a planet away, and geopolitics is not my field. I’m not a world leader, nor a military strategist, or anything that would qualify me to make a decision or have an informed answer.
I might be a spineless fence-sitter, but I don’t like what Israel is doing, and I don’t like what Hamas is doing. For that reason, I wouldn’t call myself pro-Israel or pro-Hamas.
Yes Hamas is a terror organization, no, that does not allow you to behave like a terror organization when fighting them.
If you have read the article this is not about innocents which where at the wrong place a the wrong time. This article is about deliberate destruction of civilian buildings without giving any justification besides ‘There are some things that we see that you don’t see.’ in some cases evacuation was allowed, in some cases no time for evacuation was given. There is in my eyes no justification for this.
I never said that Israel should stand idle. So don’t push that opinion on me.
What could be done? Attack military targets only, give civilians time to evacuate. (Yes a civilian home becomes a military target if it is used as weapons stash/factory, but there was no indication at all in the cases listed in the article), support the more moderate Fatah in regaining control. Support new democratic elections. Provide help in forms primarily targeted at civilians: Food, water, education. Allow students from the Gaza Strip to study abroad. Part of that is already done, but hampered by the military actions.
Destroying peoples homes and basic utilities will only ensure that hate on Israel grows and support for Hamas remains steady.
Yes Hamas is a terror organization, no, that does not allow you to behave like a terror organization when fighting them.
I agree.
If you have read the article this is not about innocents which where at the wrong place a the wrong time. This article is about deliberate destruction of civilian buildings without giving any justification besides ‘There are some things that we see that you don’t see.’ in some cases evacuation was allowed, in some cases no time for evacuation was given. There is in my eyes no justification for this.
I respect your sentiment that you can’t justify killing innocents no matter the cause. I also respectfully disagree, and I accept “There are somethings that we see that you don’t” as tactical reasoning. I don’t do this with a happy heart, or a sense of conviction. It is a sad to thing to recognize.
You don’t let your enemy know how you know where to hit, because that would expose your intelligence - be it collaborators, equipment or units - to your enemy.
I do agree though, that it leaves you with doubt that the IDF isn’t just murdering people. However I don’t think they’d go to such trouble to sometimes notify and sometimes not. It doesn’t make sense.
I never said that Israel should stand idle. So don’t push that opinion on me.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth or assuming your opinion for you. I was wrong here to a fault.
What could be done? Attack military targets only, give civilians time to evacuate. (Yes a civilian home becomes a military target if it is used as weapons stash/factory, but there was no indication at all in the cases listed in the article),
Hamas doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention. It’s fighters don’t dress as a military, they dress in civilian clothing. Maybe not as a rule, but there’s definitely footage that Hamas itself released with their fighters wearing Jeans and T Shirts.
Regarding allowing civilians to evacuate - This is again the issue of tactical reasoning from before.
support the more moderate Fatah in regaining control. Support new democratic elections.
I’ll add - remove the Likud and Netanyahu from power, add the Palestinians into the Abraham accords. All worthy things to do AFTER the war, and should be done. No doubt.
Destroying peoples homes and basic utilities will only ensure that hate on Israel grows and support for Hamas remains steady.
I whole-heatedly agree with you on this one. Both sides are losing right now. I think this war will mean that Fatah will disappear and the west bank will become Hamas too. And then the situation is twice as fucked.
It is true that the actions of the military kill innocents. I think it would’ve happened even without Hamas using them as human shields.
But should Israel simply stand idle as it’s citizens are slaughtered and kidnapped? If so, then why?
That's a false dichotomy, and one alternative approach was already provided in the comment you originally replied to.
the Israeli State holds a humongous power advantage. They don’t use that power disparity to deescalate and integrate the Palestinian people to prevent Hamas from having support. Instead they do shit like this where they drive Palestinians straight into Hamas’ hands, because the Palestinian people are given no other option to turn to.
Certainly there are even more alternatives that exist in the miles wide gap between "raze all of gaza" and "stand idle".
I do agree that any cycle of violence further radicalizes the Palestinians. It also marginalized the Israeli left since Yitzhak Rabin was murdered. Both sides keep pushing, like a pendulum, ever since the negotiations with Yasser Arafat failed due to the right of return.
Are the Israelis solely to blame for this? Maybe. Does it provide a solution for the here and now? No.
That’s a false dichotomy, and one alternative approach was already provided in the comment you originally replied to.
The original comment says integration, that is a one state solution for the two people. That means that the right of return takes place. If that happens, Israel is no longer a Jewish state.
How can you integrate with a political movement that just murdered and kidnapped people your people? Who vowed to destroy your nation in very colorful ways? How do you solve the here and now?
I agree that Israel shares plenty of blame, primarily the government and the right wing. Ok. How does that neutralize the threat of Hamas now? How does that stop the rockets? How can the IDF pull back and not get another surprise attack in three weeks?
How can the IDF pull back and not get another surprise attack in three weeks?
Now that they have killed so many civilians, it's gonna be tough. They aren't making it better as they continue destroying homes, hospitals, and refugee camps though. The time to try treating them like humans was before the recent attack.
Here's what I can tell you for sure:
You don't reduce the number of terrorists by making it crystal clear that you give zero shits about civilian deaths
Whatever actions would lead to a reduction in terrorism from Gaza are going to start with humanitarian outreach, not bombs
And let's not forget those illegal settlements which are a constant provocation.
Whatever the correct actions look like - they are going to need to account for the fact that they've just created shitloads more ill will than even was there previously.
Do my bullet points solve the problem? Hell no. But my (or your) inability to come up with a solution doesn't mean there isn't a better one than what they are currently doing, and doesn't support the idea that their only other option is to do nothing. Neither of us (presumably) are world leaders with experience in this area. But when shit comes out of my sink faucets, I don't need to be a plumber to know that mine has fucked up.
I agree with you on most of what you said here. Things are fucked. Better solutions should be sought, especially diplomatic ones - if possible. Until such a solution presents itself, stopping Israel sounds like a bad idea.
This is the thing that gets me - what would you do if someone barricaded themselves inside a house next door, kept taking pot shots and you and stealing people off the street? I would shoot back.
Until you realise you locked them in the house after them and their friends tried to take your back yard when you were having a domestic with your partner, and a founding part of their cult is that you need to die.
Nah if we’re gonna continue this analogy, it’s like if you come across a village of 50 people then force everyone into one house so you can have your friends move into the other houses. Then 1 of those 50 starts shooting at you. So then you drop a grenade in the house, kill a bunch of their kids and shoot their dog.
So how are you any better than the terrorist you condemn, by openly admitting you are ready to shoot 10 civilians? At what number of civilians do you make the cut 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000?
I posted this article even though I nominally support what Israel is doing here. This war has a legitimate human cost and there’s no reason to belive that reasonable people will never view that cost as too high.
I think the story painted here shows both the horrid cost on civilian life that these bombings have and the extensive efforts to avoid civilian casualties that the IDF takes.
Short of an Jeff Bezos takeover of Gaza to turn it into the world’s biggest Amazon warehouse, I literally don’t know what could possibly solve the situation. It’s clear from the cheering crowds praising raped corpses that there’s too much hatred to reasonably integrate Gaza into greater Israel. And it’s clear from the massive terror the Muslim Brotherhood caused in Egypt, that they could never integrate into an Egyptian society . And is clear from the 4-6x Marshall Plan per person they’ve received in aid that aid to Gaza is a black hole that will never lead to a thriving society. After 2004 I remember this optimism and a belief that this Israel/Palestine thing was really back on pace for a 2 state solution. And now I just don’t see it.
Some solution has to be found. If Israel just empties Palestine of Palestinians and claims it all as Israel, that won’t give them the safety they want from attacks by nutters. The crazy thing that is, there are right wing nutters in Israel wanting to exactly that. Ethnic cleansing is no way to peace. Even the US won’t support them doing that. Even doing it salami slicing with nutty settlers isn’t going unnoticed.
There needs to be a justice system to deal with nutters. You can’t deal with harsh collective punishment. It’s a nutters response that just creates more nutters on the other side. Which nutters of the side partly want to justify their own nuttiness and to create more of them on their own side.
I don’t think that goal this time is to evict Palestinians from Gaza. I think the goal is simply to try to get a “new deal.” Most terrorist organizations aren’t as evil, incompetent and aren’t as ridiculous as Hamas is. I mean imagine how much better Gaza would be with a Taliban-esque leadership group in charge. Or even just a leadership group physically located in Gaza.
Like how many jihadists can really be left in Gaza? At some point, they’ve got to run out of these idiots.
There are some who are calling for it to be the end of Palestinians. Nuking them and other means of clearing the land.
You never run out of idiots. They will be coming to Palestinian to fight. Young men are prone to look for causes to fight for and there is a real injustice happening to Palestine.
Israel can’t just kill it’s way to peace. No justice, no peace.
Hamas aren’t helping the Palestinian cause either because they are clearly terrorist nutters.
It doesn’t take much sanity to see that attacking your much larger and stronger neighbor and indiscriminately murdering their elderly and children and parading raped corpses through your streets would be a terrible idea. But we have idiots on both sides.
They are religious nutters, they don’t care about their own death, or the deaths of thousands of Palestinians. If anything, they want Israel to attack Palestine and kill thousands, and create rage that creates more Hamas. Hamas isn’t only fed by Palestinians. It can’t be defeated by military might. That’s like “the beatings will continue until morale improves”.
It’s not about beating Gaza into submission. It’s about destroying the logistical facilities necessary to executing slave raids. There’s not need for Gazan to “submit” to Israel. They just need to stop attacking Israel.
Those same facilities are used by civilians. It really seams about giving Palestinians the choices of submit, leave or die. This is not the road to peace.
Yes I’m sure they do. However the answer isn’t to respond with more war crimes. It just keeps escalating and innocent people keep dying. It also feeds the nutters on both sides, swelling their numbers and influence.
Other than as part of collective punishment, I don’t think colocated facility is especially contentious.
Edit: I read chocolate and cut and passed it because I thought chocolated was amusing. Tired dyslexic brain text processing. Co-located does remove some of the protections.
So your definition of “war crime” is unique and different from the Geneva Conventions definition of war crimes.
So when you say :
However the answer isn’t to respond with more war crimes.
What yiu need to realize is that people arent responding to war crimes with more war crimes. Theyre responding with force which is much less violent than what the Geneva Conventions would allow them to respond with.
I had read chocolated and was amused. Yes, colated does remove some of the protection. But Israel has to prove that. There will be problems if there is no evidence and/or internal doubts from intelligence appear.
For the most part they have shown and told this war. More than they have historically. And in the case of Al Shifa, that being a dual use hospital has been well known and documented for years in the press.
This is revenge. It will just create a whole new generation of Hamas. It won’t help peace. The previous peace wasn’t really peace but dominance. For real peace, to stop the murder of both sides, there needs to be a peace process. The nutters of sides need to be sidelined and even face a just justice system.
Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let’s kill citizens united while at it.
Which I’m a huge fan of. Not sure why we’d vote for people who won’t agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.
I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?
Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.
Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.
Aren’t you so lucky to be someone who can choose to sit on the fence and not suffer the consequences. Do you understand idiotic that statement is?
Jesus Christ, I hate to do Godwins Law here but just because when you have one side that is Nazi Germany that wants to dominate the world, kill all the undesirables, all that good stuff. Then you take a gander at the British; sure, they are a world colonial empire that deserves to be shattered but they are a democracy that DOESN’T dream of world conquest and killing everyone on earth, so any nonbraindead person would pick the side of the “br’ish”.
And you, over there just sitting there thinking “heh, one side has a small amount of evil while the other is the embodiment of evil so I’m going to do nothing.”
Sure, an extreme example, but the principal is the exact same.
Take Civil Rights, just because sometimes the civil rights people may be annoying and rarely takes a few things too far DOESN’T mean they’re the same as the horrific segregationists and the KKK, who’ll kill and lynch whoever they don’t like.
Imagine going “My choices are between the Nazis or the British Empire” and thinking the answer is one of them and not burning the whole thing down if that’s the best it can offer you.
You really are a dumbass, aren’t ya? Making an argument that the Nazis were all that bad.
I suppose that’s fair, any concession, no matter how small, will constitute a defeat to your side so you must stand your ground and defend the undefendable.
Oh the nazis were horrible. The British empire was worse. The Indian famine, intentionally caused by the crown, killed almost 11 million people. Why are you downplaying genocide? Couldn’t you pick a country that didn’t kill an equal amount of people as the nazis during the same time period to play the “good guys” in your scenario?
Hey stupid, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, they killed about 11 million in the concentration camps. Imagine how many would be dead if they enacted Generalost Plan.
So killing 11 million people is bad, right? If yes, why are you ok with the British empire doing it? It’s equal parts gross and hilarious that you’re downplaying their attempts at genocide by using them as the good guys in your scenario.
I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don’t vote, and corporations don’t vote. The people do.
It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn’t a failure of the politicians–it’s a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.
I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.
The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.
The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.
Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate
Yeah, you might as well not vote. You’re never going to sway enough people to vote independent to challenge one of the big two, especially since the choice right now is between old people or people trying to establish a fascist theocracy.
And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.
I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.
You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.
Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.
The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.
Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there’s no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?
Don’t tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don’t believe that for a second.
I guess I’d flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?
Because that’s the thing, they know they’re running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can’t do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.
Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren’t worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don’t see why this effect wouldn’t be the same for Congress and the Senate.
yeah plus he was making the Pentagon pay for it to be available for Ukraine’s defense so pulling like this is somewhere between fraud and treason. fucker better get what’s coming to him
In a news article I read the hostility has been understood as the US officially engaging in a war. So, treason doesn't apply actually. At the same time, the current Russia-US relation can be as hostile as possible due to nukes.
If he continues the way he's going, that's not going to last all that much longer. One does not retain their financial security by crumbling every project you touch into dogshit. Tesla and Twitter are both on the fast slide into the gutter.
He is being propped up by Saudi investors, which are aligned with Russians on more fronts than one.
Don't think for a second that his wealth is connected to the success of his businesses, never was. It's always been connected to his investors. His investors own him. His investors are the Saudis.
Musk is America's new 9/11, just, in slow and prolonged motion. Same money, same people behind it.
This is one of the reasons I refuse to shop at my local Meijer stores. Their fucking registers are quick to accuse you of stealing something, and you’re treated as guilty by the employees even if you try to prove that the machine is wrong.
I know more than one person who has had this experience, chiefly my sister who already has severe social anxiety. She won’t step foot there again.
One has been banned since the first time she went because the employees confused her with someone that actually shoplifted. They called in the cops, who told her should be trespassed if she came back.
Not just that. When self-checkouts were first introduced, the argument was that even with the added shrink, the benefits outweighed the costs of employing an actual person. Now, of course, the shrink rates have no longer made this profitable and shareholders are crying.
Personally, I’m fine with self-checkout since I can bag my own groceries exactly how I want them and without having to interact with anyone. That said, I will not be stopping for anyone to check my receipt and my items. If they don’t want the possibility of shrink, then they shouldn’t have gone this route in the first place.
Not only that, but the reduced shrink during Covid, tucked up to “normal” levels… but this was then presented as a 100pct increase compared to last year… and thus a huuuge increase.
The jobs numbers tanking during COVID because everyone had to be let go or furloughed apparently has nothing to do with Biden “bringing America more jobs faster than any previous President” bullshit.
Nah dude, the jobs that left just came back, you didn’t do shit to make that happen, Biden.
As a Democrat voter, makes me sick how hard they are back to pushing “The economy is doing great, you whiners need to just fucking vote for us already, all right!” while holding Trump and Fascism over our heads like a veritable Sword of Damocles. They don’t feel the need to do more because it’s easier to sit on their haunches and yell “But if you don’t vote for us, Trump will turn the US into a fascist state” as if that isn’t an implicit admission that they won’t do anything to stop Trump if he wins (even illegitimately!!!) and will let him run roughshod over US citizens as punishment for not voting Democrat sufficiently enough.
Israel has effectively been continuously waging war against Palestinians for many decades now, how is what happened surprising to anyone? There is nothing to celebrate about war, it is horrific from all directions, but I also notice when Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes to take their land, or Israel blockades Palestinian territory so they struggle to obtain even basic necessities, it doesn’t make the headlines. Israel is an apartheid regime, just like these students wrote in that letter.
Exactly. There wouldn’t be a rebel group if there wasn’t a brutal regime to rebel against.
Sure, the letter lacked some tact, but the gist of what they’re saying is true.
Although, appearing to come down on the side of rape and torture is never a good look. And that’s where the letter is wrong. The specifics of what Hamas did here are absolutely abhorrent and completely wrong. But that does not change the fact that this was a lashing out against ongoing apartheid.
Now, this is where I have to say, much like the letter in question should’ve clarified, that Hamas itself is horribly problematic. They’re a deeply shitty, far-right extremist religious group that does not represent (and occasionally murders) the multifaceted people of Palestine. (Not to mention, they were funded/created by Israel in the 80s. So…)
This article and this week has really laid bare a few problems. Firstly, this stupid Harvard controversy. This is the media falling for that insane right wing scare tactic/“talking point” that students becoming more interested in activism when they’re let out into the world and end up learning more about how the world works is the fault of the ACtiViSt SChOolZ turning our children into clove-smoking Bolsheviks! Anyone with two fucking brain cells to rub together understands that student activist groups…don’t speak for a school. Harvard said nothing because…why the fuck would they have to?
Secondly, and more importantly:
The University’s Jewish centre, Harvard Hillel, claimed the statement was a sign of “further hatred and anti-Semitism”.
This. This constant defending of Israel’s actions by throwing the word “antisemitism” at anyone who dares question the Israeli state. Living in nyc, our local news has been full of predominantly Jewish people falling for this logical trap themselves. This is not a jEwiSh ConSpIRaCy or any nonsense. This is the same problem we see across the internet age of people staking their claim to their political side and never thinking past the easy outs. This is propaganda by a brutal state government (a government coalition, when you consider Israel’s allies) that is purposefully utilizing an incredibly dark world history to defend itself by hiding behind atrocities perpetrated against Jewish people and the ongoing and very complicated (and very real history) of antisemitism.
I get it. Antisemitism is a huge problem. And according to Hannah Arendt, it’s a problem and precedes and is an historical building block for fascism throughout history. Antisemitism has roots that stretch back hundreds of years and is something that I don’t think any of us understand.
BUT—the state of Israel is only muddying the waters of that very real problem when it uses “antisemitism” as a shield and a cudgel to act with impunity and to silence any legitimate criticism.
It needs to fuckin stop. But it won’t. I wonder where that will lead. Probably only to more antisemitism, even from people who would typically be very wary of not falling on the wrong side of that line. But when the line looks like a gradient from here to Timbuktu, well then, how can you stay on the right side of it?
Yes, Israel has done terrible things and continues to treat Palestinians terribly. But why do people have to be so black-and-white about it? The letter said the students “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence” and “The apartheid regime is the only one to blame.” They’re saying that the men with guns had no part of the responsibility for going house to house murdering hundreds of civilian men, women and children as they tried to hide, no responsibility for attacking a music festival and gunning down everyone they could as they tried to run, no responsibility for the reported rape-murders. It’s absurd to say these Hamas gunmen had no responsibility for what they did. Nothing forces a person to rape and murder civilians, even in impossible circumstances, and if someone chooses to do so, they are responsible for their actions, no matter what the circumstances. Sure, Israel is responsible for the conditions it created, but the letter goes too far in saying it’s the only responsible party.
We have to recognize that this is a terrible situation in which multiple parties are responsible for atrocities. To assign all the responsibility to one group is simplistic.
Their settlers have been entering the Al Aqsa Mosque en masse for the past couple weeks, trying to pray, which even the Israeli government says they're not supposed to do.
The Israeli settlers did this first in the forties when they invaded and colonized Palestine, indiscriminate violence was their M.O., so yes the first stone was thrown two generations ago. Not excusing the violence today, but it is not unexpected nor unprecedented by either side of this conflict.
how many times has palestine been offered land for peace? Many - In 1948, 1967 and even later there were offers which mentioned connecting palestine and gaza. all the times, palestinians refused it.
Hence why I am under the impression that they are more responsible for this conflict.
Thats like asking why Ukrainian wont just accecpt Russians offer for peace. They have their homeland stolen, and then should be happy with a little bit of it after the fact?
They never accepted because it was thier fertile crop land that was being taken from them. It failed to be mentioned that these offers were by the British. The Jews themselves also declined the first to offers.
This is like somebody moving into your home and then you accept a couple of the bedrooms and one of the bathrooms, believing it to be an appropriate compromise.
To speak less in analogies and just cite history, Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century until 1917. After their defeat in WWI, Britain took control of the region under the British Mandate for Palestine, basically controlling all of the region west of the River Jordan. Up until 1947, approximately 420,000 Jews immigrated to the region where the population was about 600k Jews to 1.2M Arabs in Palestine.
In 1948, Britain left which meant an opportunity for a coalition of Arab states to attempt to take back “what was theirs” 31 years ago. The Jews were able to defend the region and have since been encroaching further and further outside of that area they defended previously.
Before all of this “modern” history, from the 7th century to the 16th, the region was controlled by Islamic states and Christian crusaders (who took the land for themselves, not for the Jews, and even killed a lot of Jews — think hundreds of thousands, if not more — during their occupation).
We can continue to go back in history to Roman rule, Egyptian rule, etc. but how far back in time are we willing to go to, going back to your analogy, determine how much of the pizza you should be entitled to? What of the rest of the world? It’s a good question and I obviously don’t have the answer but I’m also trying to understand as best as I’m able to.
With that being said, none of that history warrants the atrocities being committed by either side. If the two sides could co-exist in a United Israel-Palestine state, that would be the ideal resolution in my mind. Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming religious zeal on one side and a superiority complex on the other, that’s just a pipe dream.
Nothing to add or contribute here just wanted to say thanks for the very thoughtful response.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the question of how far we should go back to work out how the “pizza” should be shared. I don’t think there is an answer to that. If you go too far back it’s ludicrous and if you think too short term it’s totally unfair.
Agree about the solution. Unfortunately it seems like people on both sides want innocents to die instead 🤷♂️
Not really. It’s definitely a bit tough to judge who did the dessert belong to. But historically, there was a point in time when jews were living in that area.
But that time you’re talking about all this land was recognized as Palestine. Prior to 1948 no government or country in the planet recognized any Israeli claim to this land.
It has been recognized as palestine for a logn long time (since rome), though state was never present. Palestine as a state never existed and thoughts about creating a palestinian state began after Ww2
Imagine having 100% of your cropland, 40% of your holy sites and 50% of your homes given to another group because of the mis conception that you are nomadic.
You are also aware that the Jews delined the first 2 offers as well until they were given 80% of the land, right?
Jewish subjects under the British mandate rebelled against the British government and the Nazi-aligned muftis. This, after decades of oppression against the Jews of the colony; finally, they declared their independence.
A lot of people are excusing, and in many cases celebrating the violence today. They love to see Jews die. This is nothing new.
No one is saying Jews need to or should die. The argument is larger than that. Israel has don’t some fucking horrible things to Palestinians. Palestine rejected land deals and peace. It’s horrible to see what’s happening. No one should be praising Hamas,
It belonged to the British before WW2. After the war, where Israel was created after 6,000,000 Jewish people (among other “undesirable” groups, such as gay people) were summarily executed by the nazis, it fell under immediately attack from all of its neighbors in 1947. Two years after six million were executed.
The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine. The Arab states marched their forces into what had, until the previous day, been the British Mandate for Palestine, starting the first Arab–Israeli War. After an initial loss of territory by the Jewish state, the tide turned in the Israelis’ favour and they pushed the Arab armies back beyond the borders of the proposed Arab state
While it doesn’t excuse brutal repression, I don’t think they are ever going to back down. Any time they do, everyone seems to execute all of them in pogroms.
Mr Tate says the War Room - which costs $8,000 (£6,300) a year to join - is a network of powerful men and those who want to learn from them.
However, the leaked online chats indicate the War Room teaches members through its so-called “PhD” course - the initials stand for “Pimpin’ Hoes Degree” - how to groom women into sex work.
Members are instructed by some of the War Room leadership - known as “generals” - to romantically seduce, emotionally manipulate and socially isolate women before luring them into performing on webcams - often taking all or most of the money they make.
It’s weird the way the government is on one hand fighting a legal battle to hide the contents of their whatsapp messages during the pandemic, while on the other hand they are fighting a legal battle to expose the content’s of everyone’s whatsapp messages to the law.
It’s not really so much that there is a “tipping point” after which the tech companies will exit Britain, it’s that if you make their product illegal then they have no choice but to stop making it available.
If you make encryption illegal, companies providing encrypted messages apps will obviously have to stop doing so, that isn’t a tipping point, it is the intended effect of the law.
bbc.com
Hot