Youtube comments of (@12q8).
-
3000
-
1200
-
493
-
430
-
421
-
400
-
395
-
389
-
283
-
270
-
249
-
225
-
211
-
207
-
206
-
198
-
180
-
176
-
176
-
163
-
159
-
145
-
144
-
136
-
122
-
120
-
120
-
119
-
117
-
117
-
111
-
106
-
103
-
100
-
93
-
89
-
86
-
85
-
84
-
82
-
82
-
77
-
77
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
67
-
62
-
61
-
55
-
52
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
"Nancy Green was born into slavery in 1834 in Montgomery County, Kentucky. In 1889 the creators of Aunt Jemima, Charles Rutt and Charles Underwood, sold the company to R.T Davis, who soon found Nancy Green in Chicago. The previous owners had already agreed upon her ‘look’ of a bandana and apron. Davis combined the Aunt Jemima look with a catchy tune from the Vaudeville circuit to make the Aunt Jemima brand.
Green’s identity was first uncovered at the Worlds’ Columbian Exposition in 1893. There were so many people interested in the Aunt Jemima exhibit, police were called for crowd control. Green served pancakes to thousands of people. People loved her warm personality and friendly demeanor, not to mention her cooking. Green was given an award for showmanship at the exposition.
As a result of her dedication, Aunt Jemima received 50,000 orders for pancake mix. Not only did flour sales soar, but Green received a lifetime contract to serve as spokesperson. She was a living legend of the brand until she died in a car accident in September 1923."
Yet, the regressive left thinks that it's a "racist" caricature because MSM told them, and that it needs to be removed but the white Betty Crocker is fine. Lmao! Really makes you wonder who the racist is.
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
My dad has so much self-hatred, altruistic morality system, was an abusive father, self-sacrificial (he never bought something good for himself), worked for a charity up to retirement, and had a gullible and ignorant mother, but the faith that took over was traditional religious faith rather than a communist one.
And honestly, any interaction with him feels like it is smearing me with his behaviors. It is contagious of sorts. Especially since he was my own authority figure growing up, and it is still part of my subconscious.
It has a very overt mental-blunting effect. I cannot think straight at all after any interaction with him. It is quite astonishing how much it affects me personality, and still does.
I do not think he consciously and willingly is trying to destroy my self-image, rather it is a mental disease that memetically spreads.
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
Public-private partnerships are one of the worst. They fail and when they deliver, it is always subpar.
The main reason being is that unlike a consumer buying an iPhone, a car, or whatever, from a retailer, when a government or company hires another company to do something, they must write everything in a contract. A contract that is written by humans, will naturally have loopholes that the contractor company can exploit.
Also, the contracting party is bind to the contractor party, and cannot exit freely, and would have already invested a ton of money. This can lead to a contract draining more and more tax money from the government while the project gets delayed over and over.
A well-written contract requires competent people to write it, and that is a very rare skill.
The less trust in a society, the more rigorous and lengthy the contract would be. Unlike in societies like Japan, where good faith and the honor system is quite common in the society.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@danielsurender Daniel, you're quite heartless at the very least, and dogmatically supporting an idol of nationalism at worst.
The responsibility still lies on the commanding officers that authorized this targeting of a clearly marked car they were supposedly coordinating with.
This also is not the first time. Many Un workers and other aid workers were targeted before, so there is a pattern.
Whatever preventative measures the IDF claimed to have taken previously, they clearly have no impact on the ground.
Whatever investigation comes from this, it should be transparent, independent, and impartial. However, 1srael will never allow that anyways, and will conduct its "own investigation" and you cannot let a suspect investigate the crime, let alone one that admitted they were responsible. There is a clear lack of impartiality and is a clear conflict of interest.
One cannot in good conscience still defend this as "these things happen" and be taken seriously. They are either completely incompetent or malicious at worst.
Consider an employee that kept breaking cars left and right in a garage and just keeps saying "oops, I'll do better next time." Would you keep such an employee?
If I employed someone with such history in my garage, he would have been fired by now, and if I vehemently supported his employment by the 5th or 6th time, I'd be rightfully called a fool.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Well, it all stems from the beginning which is that Israel was implanted there by force. Before the first world war, there were barely any Jews there, and then after WW1, immigration of Jews form all over Europe accelerated. During that time, there were tensions between Jews and Palestinians because Jews would buy acres of land from mostly absent Arab owners who did not live in Palestine and forcefully kicked families who were living on these lands. This started a rebellion in 1936 which the British had to intervene and stop it.
Then after WW2, Jewish immigration waves were accelerated, and funded from Jews and Zionists all over the world. Even Murder Inc, a Jewish mafia in Chicago at the time, helped fund Zionist militias that terrorized Palestinians out of their lands which started the Palestinian exodus in 1947-8. A lot of what is now mostly Jewish cities like Haifa and Jaffa were mostly Palestinian, but the Zionist militias forced them out because after WW2, they had huge immigration waves of Jews that needed to settle somewhere. In Jaffa, I think, they forced Palestinians into boats and kicked them out.
This started the 1948 war of Arab states trying to take back Palestine. Zionists were properly armed with what was then top-tech and had more finance. Back then, oil wasn't discovered everywhere in the middle east. That is why they won.
When the UN made the plans for 2 states 1947, Palestinians got pissed because despite Jews being a minority and owned not much land, they were assigned more land than their actual representation. After Britain left, they also gave all unowned lands to Israel when it declared independence, which sounds as valid as most splits in divorce court cases.
Hamas wasn't even a thing in the 60's, so I have no clue why you are mentioning it.
>Is it fair to say that after the war they declared on Israel and the result of that war where Israel occupies the land mentioned, that the Palestinians now agree to the U.N. offer and want Israel to give the land back to the Palestinians?
I don't think they will ever agree, and they shouldn't agree if they want their lands back. Even if you ask Palestinians nowadays, they will mostly tell you that they want Palestine back as a state and allow pre-1948 Jews and their descendants to stay. Some will even argue that pre-1967 should stay, but point is that they differ in opinions themselves.
Visit this non-profit organization's website: https://ifamericansknew.org/
You will find that every year, more Palestinian kids are killed than Israels by a huge margin. It also covers how much Israel lobbies to hide a lot of brutal facts of its treatment of Palestinians and the history.
Your thoughts clearly stem from a lack of exposure to what truly is happening over there. I would advise you to learn more about Palestinians and their struggle, and that is why I linked you to that source.
Look up the American activist Rachel Corrie. She was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer and ever since, Israel is holding the investigation results secret and denying any responsibility.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The same excuses used over and over. I honestly thought your comment was a joke.
Using starvation as a weapon is a war crime.
It is deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.
Aside from that, the Geneva Convention IV (1949), Article 33, specifically states:
"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
Protocol I - Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977), Article 54.
It states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations, and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."
And your ninth point is ignorant to say the least. You forgot to mention that only 15 of the 36 hospitals are partially functioning and those are operating at up to three times their capacity, without adequate fuel or medical supplies. There are no functioning laboratories in Gaza, severely limiting medics' ability to diagnose patients.
This also is a war crime. Article 23 of the Geneva Convention IV (1949):
"Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores... intended only for civilian hospitals..."
These laws have been put in place because of how bloody and destructive WWII was, so using WWII as a justification is ridiculous at best, and malicious at worst.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Alset Alokin I literally looked at it and responded by simply stating that it has been genetically proven that modern-day Palestinians are the original inhabitants of that land. the video you sent even suggests that when it says the Philistines just vanished. Tribes of people can't just disappear. We now have genetic evidence from skeletons 3000 years old that proves Palestinians still share the same DNA as the original inhabitants.
To further debunk that video, he says that it was the Romans who called Palestine Palestina based on what Greeks named the lands of the Philistines.
So, the renaming of the province to Palestina is evidence that Palestine and Palestinians existed and were called Palestinians. Again, people can't just vanish. The Philistines integrated with Caananites mostly.
For the quote of zahir Mohsen, he was a pan-Arabist nationalist. The video doesn't show the quote in full, but anyone can look it up. He says that there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians because he believes that all Arabic speaking nations are one people. It is like saying that the French, British, Germans don't exist because we are all European.
The video then makes shit up on what a "new tool" means when literally in the quote Zahir was talking about the existence of a Palestinian state (ie West Bank and Gaza being declared a Palestinian state) and not calling themselves Palestinians. Palestinians have always called themselves Palestinians.
God, this video is a mess full of assumptions that the viewer is ignorant of Palestinian history.
The Charter change can be simply explained by looking at the map of Palestine after every war. Gaza was taken over by Egypt, and the West Bank was taken over by Jordan. So, of course, the PLO won't try and exercise its sovereignty over other ally Arab nations sovereignty.
The Six Day war was also started by Israel. Israel decided to invade. The USSR told Arab countries that Israel wanted to invade, so Arab countries had their armies protecting at their borders and then Israel saw that, and claimed it was "preemptive" war because "those darn Arabs surely wanted to attack us."
Then the video assumes that since all the bs above is "proof" that Palestine us bs, then all those people who claim to be Palestinians are liars.
Then for the "historical evidence" that Palestine was empty, it is mostly a desert. Look at every desert country and tell me if you find villages sprung everywhere. No, you don't. It is mostly just a major concentration of populations. It is a result of the ecology that is vastly different from Europe.
Then, the video lies about the makeup of the Jerusalem population in the British consulate report. The video tries to imply that 3/4 of the population of Jerusalem were Jews when it is not. Jerusalem is the holy city of all major Abrahamic religions INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY, mainly Greek Orthodox. Historians also note the diversity of ethnicities and religions in Jerusalem during that time.
In fact, the first Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem was built in 1860. So the videos LIED about Jews being a majority in Jerusalem or Palestine. It deals with it as if Christians do not exist in Palestine.
In fact, Ottoman documents show that about 88% in 1878 of Palestine's population was Muslim, which is right before the alleged "Ottoman resettlement of Muslims into Palestine" happened that I wasn't able to find any evidence of when Googling, and the rest were mostly Christians.
For land ownership and selling them, the quotes are taken out of context. He was talking about huge vasts of lands that had tenants living on them and then absentee owners sold those lands to Jews. And we know from the Mandate's authorities that in 1944, only %6 of lands were owned and bought by Jews in Palestine. So that is another lie. They tell you "it was sold to us!" but they never tell you how much was sold, and what happened to inhabitants of the lands.
Mufti Hosseini also mentions how it was due to the poor economy of Palestine due to the wars the area had (WWI in case you forgot), and the arrival of rich Jewish migrants that Arab landowners sold the lands. The Arab landowners had no idea that Zionists were planning to declare a state. In their view, the Arab landowners sold the land to a fellow Jew who would respect the customs of the lands and the tenants or at least evict them with dignity, but as we know, that didn't happen which is why the 1936 conflict started. This is evidence of no widespread prejudice had of Jewish immigrants during that time by Arabs. It was only after the Balfour declaration became known and Jewish Zionist militias terrorizing people that they probably acknowledged their mistake.
The video again hopes the viewer doesn't know any better. And it never cites anything for claims of extortion, and I wasn't able to find something real quick, so I'd appreciate it if you link it so I can take a look at it.
So the video is pure Israeli propaganda that hopes the viewer is ignorant.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I'd argue that if the UK enforced a single secular democratic state instead of simply abandoning ship in the midst of a civil war that started way before they left the Mandate, we wouldn't be having this problem.
Even for the current issue at hand, simply Israel should let the West Bank and Gaza a fully sovereign Palestinian state. By doing so, Israel will seize occupying those lands, allow them to use their sea, air, and land and have their own currency to freely trade and travel instead of the caged in restrictions they have right now, and give them the right of self-determination.
Unfortunately, the popular sentiment in Israel voted for the Likud party which is founded on the platform of "from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea, there will be Israeli sovereignty." That is aside from the coalition they formed with even further extreme parties, like "J*wish Power" party and "Religious Zionist Party". The problem is more systematic where since birth to the mandatory conscription to have a nationalistic view. It is rather normalized even, and it's rather few that break free from this later in their adult life.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Can you make a video about what benefits Palestine can get from being fully admitted into the UN?
I know some, if I understand the way the UN works correctly:
- Membership in various UN agencies and organizations would enable Palestine to participate in decision-making processes and benefit from resources and expertise available through these institutions. For example, access to agencies like the World Health Organization or UNICEF could improve healthcare and education outcomes for Palestinians. Because currently, they are operating under the behest of Israel, which they can obstruct and stop at any time.
- Palestine would have greater opportunities to engage in legal mechanisms, such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, to seek redress for human rights abuses and violations of international law. This could include legal challenges to Israeli settlements, the separation barrier, and other aspects of the occupation. This would give Palestine the right to sue Israel instead of depending on courageous countries to take the lead.
- It would also be able to leverage resolutions and sanctions within the UN framework, and this can help.
- Admission as a full UN member would further affirm their right to a homeland and self-governance.
Obviously Israel would not want that to happen, and the US could veto that though that would just expose how much they actually "support" the so-called "two-state solution."
4
-
@macknut2033 wtf are you on about?
I am just telling you your problem with your original comment.
It's irrelevant who asked who. Lebanese people and Americans were fighting each other.
Aside, your number of 60% is also wrong.
In 1956, the percentage of Christians was about 55%, made up of many different Christian groups (Maronite, Eastern Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Protestant, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian, and Copt), and that was about the highest.
4
-
4
-
Alset Alokin Not sure where you got the lie that most Palestinians aren't from Palestine and just moved there a couple generations ago.
Palestinian refugee camps in all neighboring countries exist and have existed ever since 1948 if not before. Even genetics data of 3000 old skeletons found in Palestine match modern Palestinians.
Yasser Arafat's father is from Gaza. His mother was Egyptian and then they moved back.
Even in the old testament, we know that Jews with Joshua led a war to take over Palestine from its inhabitants around 1273, the same people genetically confirmed to be modern day Palestinians.
So in essence, the only claim of Palestine as Jewish is from a book that says nomadic Jews own an already inhabitant land that Abraham stayed in for a while and that it is unquestionably theirs and that they should take it by force. While modern-day Palestinians have genetic data to prove they are the same people that Abraham lived amongst.
This extends to modern day Palestine as well. It was taken with the violence of Zionist Jewish militias. Look up Palestinian exodus of 1948.
Some of these violent Zionist militias, like Lehi, even allied themselves with Nazi Germany up until they discovered the holocaust in 1940's. So they didn't care about any Nazi persecution of Jews beforehand at all, but still allied themselves with concepts of racial purity.
Israel plays the victim constantly while it is simultaneously bombing and air striking innocent Palestinians for decades since its inception, and then when they respond with small rockets that miss their targets decades later, you go out of your way, bomb them to rubbles, and claim that they are terrorists.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@walterbailey2950 Obviously.
TIK covered that a bunch and explained how when it comes to the economics side of things, Historians are no experts, which is why a lot of non-Marxist historians just went along with the Marxists historians with their "Nazis are far right" catchphrase.
TIK covers it comprehensively in his long Hitler is a socialist video.
Arguably, it doesn't matter who says what. You look at the evidence.
When price controls, taxes on businesses, and huge manipulations and interventions in the market is employed, opposite to a free market, then that puts you on the left side. Regardless of how many people call that system "far-right."
It is rather this confusion that creates convoluted and illogical theories, like the "horse shoe" theory, which states that the far left and far right meet at their ends, instead of being opposite ends of a linear continuum, or the "communism-to-nazism" pipeline and vice versa. Because ultimately, they are simply moving from one version of socialism, to another.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Nah, they are being treated well.
People are reaching conclusions based on one instance they are aware of, where the old woman said she was treated well, and then make up their own beliefs based on preconceived assumptions.
She already said she was hit by someone before being taken into Gaza, she turned back and shook hands with one of the H@mas, and said Shalom to him.
So she was not forced to say those nice words, because she said some bad, and because she shook hands and said peace before leaving them.
Aside from that, we have the testimony of Yasmin Porat, Israeli citizen that was held captive during the 7th in her home with her family and said they were treated well.
And on top of that, Israeli spy, Gilad Shalit, who was taken as a captive for 5 years with Hamas, said he was treated well after he was released.
We have a precedent, we have testimonies of people on the 7th, and testimonies of people released from Gaza.
That is not even counting all the details Hamas releases on their treatment of captives if you want to discredit all that solely because they are “the baddies.”
Now, one will have to wonder why Israeli authorities do not want any captive released to speak on live TV anymore, and why Yair Lapid, Israeli ex-prime minister, said that the media being objective will “only serve H@mas.”
It is because Israel wants to push and paint them in a very specific manner, and to push their narrative exclusively.
They want Israel to be the “only source of Truth(tm)”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nubtube7313 Why are you putting words in his mouth?
What he said is clear:
"I think that when we talk about a two-state solution, we are using three words, and three lies. It's not two, it's not a state, and it's definitely not a solution."
"So, what's the answer? An everlasting occupation?"
"First, occupation is not the word. One cannot occupy his own land. Israel is not an occupier in Israel, because that's the land of Israel."
"So, what about Gaza?"
"Again."
"Also land of Israel?"
"Land of Israel, you cannot be occupying, we're not occupying it from anyone."
He didn't mention once any disputed territory and even when asked about Gaza said it is the land of Israel.
Yet you come in to whitewash it saying "what he actually meant is the complete opposite."
He is clearly making a claim that occupied territories are not occupied, because they lay claim on them as part of their state.
Why else do you think Netanyahu always shows maps in the UN with no Gaza or West Bank? It's his government's position, and long stated goal of making the idea of a Palestinian state impossible.
It is also why they want to forcefully transfer Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt, and from the West Bank to Jordan, and also why they have been building settlements all around the West Bank, so that they can say "oh well, you can't really have a Palestinian state now since there are settlements everywhere around, and thus impossible to form a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gautampressman The purpose of interviewing isn’t always to filter or gatekeep ideas. In many cases, interviewers provide a platform for a wide range of voices, leaving it to the audience to evaluate the content.
A journalist interviewing a politician doesn’t refuse to speak with them because their policies are contentious. Instead, the journalist asks probing questions to shed light on their perspective, leaving it to the public to decide whether they agree or not.
>"If in doubt, they are supposed to reach out to a network of trusted experts to get their guests vetted."
This is an impractical standard for most interview formats. Vetting every guest through experts assumes infinite resources and time, which most podcasts, especially high-output ones, don’t have. Additionally, experts themselves may have biases or disagreements, making the vetting process subjective. The act of interviewing itself can be a form of vetting. By asking thoughtful questions and allowing guests to explain their views, interviewers give their audience the tools to evaluate credibility. Demanding pre-vetted guests risks creating an echo chamber where only "safe" ideas are allowed.
A documentary filmmaker interviewing a controversial figure doesn’t necessarily seek expert validation beforehand. They present the figure’s perspective to let viewers critically assess it. If every guest were pre-approved by experts, many important but divisive stories would never be told.
Suggesting that every guest must be vetted through experts assumes that podcasts have the resources of major news organizations. For smaller or independent shows, this expectation is unreasonable.
Legacy media would also have their biases in this hit piece since no one is watching them now. Especially since their huge resources have repeatedly failed in this exact task and standard you're setting.
If anything, it shows how childish the BBC have gotten to rely on highschool playground level argumentation. Besides, you're an adult. You make your own decision, and so everyone else.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@absaly well, hanas was being slandered, defamed, smeared, and not have any of their announcements even broadcasted in Western media. And they had announcements made almost daily. None were translated, and none were covered in Western media.
Western media was only covering one side exclusively, allowing it to throw whatever accusations it wants, while not giving the other side a platform at all.
They did the attack on the 7th, but propaganda tactics and public perception manipulation shaped the public opinion at the first day, even when a lot of things were not clear. A lot of accusations were thrown, some the IDF never denied but also never confirmed and just left to manipulate public perception. This is a war on the public mind more than just a military war.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Not just that Palestine cannot vote as an observer, but also can't take states to the ICJ or utilize many UN organizations directly, which is why South Africa had to take Israel to the ICJ.
Also, this just shows another example of why the US does not want Palestine to have full membership and claim that this can be resolved not through international law, but "bilateral agreements" because international law would demand a two-state solution, with a fully independent Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, and both Israel and the US oppose that.
They want full on one-sided concessions from Palestine to agree to at worst, and a full annexation and ethnic cleansing at best.
In the talks between Beilin and Abbas in the 90s and 2000s, the Palestinians made huge concessions on the right of return of refugees to land occupied in 1948, and agreed to a demilitarised Palestinian state, the existence of many Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian capital being in Jerusalem but in a village-like area. The Geneva Act introduced similar concessions on refugees, settlements, a demilitarised Palestinian state and Jerusalem. Yet to this day, Israel refuses it hoping to fully annex Palestine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Oh yeah, and if you live in a low-IQ country like I do, you'd realize how much is barely standing because of imported expertise.
I learned recently that the whole grid in my country is running because the government sector responsible for utilities keeps bringing in German experts from the company they bought the equipment from to run the whole thing. The local team of engineers have no clue how anything works, and have boring office jobs.
So, as IQ keeps going down, these experts will be rarer to find, and cost more to bring. Grid issues will be more common, and less reliant.
It might take a few generations for that to occur, and I really think by the time we're grandparents, we might start seeing the cracks really appear.
I really think it would be impossible to maintain the current standards of living in the long run, so the self-reliant off-grid communities might be up to something. They are learning how to survive from scratch, and with the current information available online, it is better to get as much of it as possible and write it down physically for future generations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@walterbailey2950 No, Nazis did not co-opt anything.
One of the biggest matters of discourse among socialists in the 20th century was whether to have a nationalist or internationalist outlook.
You can watch TIK's video on the differences between fascism and national socialism for more on the topic.
As for big government, you are again using historical outdated left and right, which differ on what they stand for based how far back we are talking and where.
There is no rewriting of history. I explained one comment above what how ultimately left and right should be defined based on, and what I think is more consistent. This means that "right-wing" royalists in France in the 18th century are statists, pro-big government, which makes them left wing, just like socialists are, and liberal anti-royalists would be right-wing. Irrelevent of their position in the national assembly at the time, and irrespective of their contemporary ideas. Does this make sense?
Having a continuum based on the size of government, as I explained in a previous comment, is more practical and objective regardless of the time in history or what different ideologies claim to be.
I'd suggest TIK's video on Public vs Private for more information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
OliTwisoak First, generalizing all neighbors as inherently hostile is not accurate and does not consider the historical and also what is actually happening in people's daily lives.
The West Bank is not controlled by Hamas, and guess what? Palestinians there are still getting harassed, detained, their homes invaded by soldiers, and also murdered. Just recently, settlers and the military attacked and displaced two Palestinian villages in the West Bank. Israel is also still building settlements disregarding all UN resolutions.
All that Abbas in the West Bank is doing is condemning and complaining at the UN. It is obvious that Israel does not respond to peaceful processes, and always ignores and screws Palestinians over like the Oslo accords that they signed and Netanyahu admittedly said he "de facto put an end to the Oslo Accords", his entire campaign is centered around removing any hope of a Palestinian state, so what would any reasonable oppressed group do in this case when you're dealing with a regime that does not make any faithful attempt?
Arguing that anything besides "damage, not accuracy" is weakness is also an awful this-or-that when they could have a faithful diplomatic attempt. But all Israel does is poison any agreement with loopholes to exploit and forcing concessions from the Palestinian side.
Gaza was not "left" in 2005. They implemented a policy of imprisonment and besieging, controlling the lives of 2 million people's access to necessities. Saying that the cause of the 7th of Oct attack is because they "left" oversimplifies and disregards any and all context and marking history as started in 7th of Oct, as if Hamas just popped out of nowhere for no reason.
Look up "if American Knew". They cover this particularly well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, the issue is hypocrisy.
On the 7th, Israeli Apache helicopters, initially, refused to shoot settlements in Israeli territory because they could not distinguish Hamas combatant with Israeli civilians. Until they started to closely and slowly select their targets later.
However, in Gaza, they bombed about 50% of residential buildings, more civilian deaths than the war in Ukraine, all in the span of a couple weeks.
We even see them bomb refugee camps, among other atrocities, with dozens killed because they claim a senior Hamas commander between them. Then they argued the Jabalia refugee camp they shot was "not a refugee camp" because it was "not a tent city." It was a UN run school that had people shelter in and around that was turned into a crater.
Israeli Defense Ministry even called Palestinians "human animals, and we'll act accordingly" when he imposed a complete siege on Gaza, blocking electricity, water, fuel, and medicine. Netanyahu reference genocidal Bible verses when announcing the ground invasion.
Then we have the government threatening to "turn Beirut into Gaza" if Hezbollah does not stop. That is a direct threat of collective punishment, besides the one ongoing in Gaza.
This hasn't even started on the 7th.
There are a lot of authors that cover this in detail, from Israeli Historians Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, and political scientist Norman Finkelstein.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Alset Alokin Yeah, the area of the 3000 BC DNA samples is the area from Sidon, to Amman to Gaza. About that box of an area.
These samples are overlapping with modern-day Palestinians genetically, and interestingly, Syrians, Jordanians, and Lebanese are not very far off as well. So this evidence supports the fact that the Philistines simply allied themselves with the Canaanites and integrated with them rather than simply vanished. After all, they are all Semitic people who spoke similar languages and were close culturally.
I already addressed the Juresalem NOT being majority Jews in 1859 since the first Jewish neighborhood was established a year after that. It was Christians and Muslims and a very small Jewish population living in Jerusalem at that time. In fact, we know from Ottoman documents that Muslims were the majority, with a lot of Christians living there as well. Jews were a minority compared to either. Refer to the other comment for more details.
3000 BC was also 5000 years ago, and we know that Jews first entered Juresalem about 1273 BC, so around 3300 years ago, and then they were mostly kicked out by the Romans, exiled, and such, and you know the rest of the story.
In fact, even Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, admitted that Jews were a minority in 1914 (https://i.imgur.com/aBngg38.jpg), about 85,000 mostly of Russian origin and came from the first and second Aliyah. The population of Palestine was well over 350,000 in the early 1800's with a Muslim majority and more 650,000 in 1914.
So Palestine wasn't "completely uninhabited" at all.
Palestine is just another term for Philistines who are a people that exist and still exist and didn't decide all of sudden to vanish.
Just because they speak Arabic now doesn't mean they are no longer related to their ancestors. It is like saying that African Americans don't exist because they speak English and not an African language.
In fact, it was easier for the Palestinians and other Semitic speaking people to adopt Arabic since it is a Semitic language.
The Palestinian people aren't all Muslims. The first Palestinian nationalist newspaper Falastin was founded by a Christian Palestinian. The move was cross-religious boundaries. It is a common Israeli tactic to fuel their propaganda with Muslim hate to create an illusion of us and them and exploit the disdain of Muslims in others to their advantage (just like you did at the end) instead of providing evidence of the reality of the situation.
Even in the video you sent, it says that the term Palestine comes from the Greek term of the people of Philistine. So Palestine is intrinsically the Philistine people. Palestine just comes from the Latin Roman origin term Palestina, but they are describing the same thing.
After all, the Palestinians are legitimate people, and for the most part, as we discussed above, they were kicked out and became refugees. Not a lot of Arabs moved in for work opportunities which is something the video did without citing numbers and we know from the population size that no, Jews were %12 and even less before the Aliyahs in the late 19th century. The video just says that Arabs came for the economy, without telling you that these Arabs were later kicked, and some were Given Israeli citizenship. We know that Arab Israelis are only %60 Palestinians and the other %40 are other Arabs who do not identify as Palestinians. So this is another lie the video says. It tries to make you think that Palestinians are the ones who moved in for work when they did not, and it lied about the land is uninhabited. It lies a lot, it is a propaganda video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When I took the class on international politics in college, the professor said that before WW1, the world was mostly realists. They believed that for peace to prosper, no nation should have the edge in weaponry, which is a prisoner's dilemma when it comes to armimant. That was the philosophy of most world leaders back then.
After WW1, the world liberals took over mostly in Western powers with their world view, and argued that WW1 happened because there was no platform for the world to discuss and talk with each other, which started the League of Nations.
However, not all European powers joined or were invited. Germany even left 9 months of Hitler taking power. USSR was expelled on December 14, 1939.
"In October 1933, some nine months after Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany, the German government announced its withdrawal from the League of Nations. The ostensible reason was the refusal of the Western powers to acquiesce in Germany’s demands for military parity."
He also said that after WW2, there was a neorealist and neoliberalist approach mostly, and since the 1990, it has been neoliberal as the dominant factor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I honestly think the state is the problem here and the population’s addiction to altruism as a virtue.
It started as nation-states improving the lives of their citizens by taxation, and now it is high on it.
Altruism got out of hand and became a political tool to signal helping the poor globally by immigration, when there are plenty of poor people in the nation anyways.
An acceptance that we cannot help everyone, and that states having a monopoly on power is bad would solve all the causes mentioned.
Some people won’t afford education, making them occupy the low-skilled labor. At the same time, without public and free education, companies would have to invest in their workers with apprenticeships or even guilds could pick up the tab.
Cultures would be maintained by the population, each forming their own structures.
There is still a lot to flesh out in this idea, but ultimately, the state is not needed, and people would be free to pursuit what they see more beneficial to themselves.
The problem boils down to natural evolution and markets intertwining, and disruptions in the market by the state in all forms is causing this fiasco we’re dealing with as it interferes with human’s natural evolution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@walterbailey2950 Yeah, if we're speaking historically, I agree.
Right and left changed throughout.
Originally it meant where they were positioned in the national assembly in France, where royalists were on the right side and anti-royalists on the left. However, trying to use this outdated continuum causes confusions like libertarians being "pro-conservatism", and that authoritarianism can be in "both ends" and working from that theory to place socialist competing ideologies in different parts of the spectrum when they ultimately would agree in their end goals, organizing social and economic affairs.
Socialism, co-opting the "left" off its historical meaning, when it stands for collectivism, state planning, community control of the individual, is something libertarians would stand against.
This is why I think left (total government) and right (no government) is more relevant and consistent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The method of collective punishment so far has proved effective." - Moshe Dayan (Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999. Book by Benny Morris, 1999.)
"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, (New York Times, 14 April 1983.)
"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries – all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940. (From "A Solution to the Refugee Problem" Joseph Weitz, Davar, September 29, 1967, cited in Uri Davis and Norton Mevinsky, eds., Documents from Israel, 1967-1973, p.21.)
"We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return. The old will die and the young will forget." - Ben-Gurion (Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes)
"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, current Prime Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
“Ben-Gurion articulated clearly the place of expulsion in the future of the Zionist project in Palestine when he wrote that same year, "With compulsory transfer we would have a vast area for settlement... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it.” - Ilan Pappé (Ten Myths About Israel)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
> If there is a market for a state, can we really deny the market?
> As soon as one person wants a state, that need is met by an entrepreneur.
In that case, it would still be a voluntary association. If it tried to enforce anything, it would be hard since everyone would be against it.
States, if we can call them that, would be voluntary subscription-based, where you pay a company for a package of services they can provide instead of being forced to.
Since we don’t live in a world where we all share the same values and as rational, humans are fallible, it would be hard to maintain a world wide ancapistan.
Banditry will exist, for example, and that would open a market for security.
Currently, that market is a monopoly by the United States. It is part of a historical deal. Would be a good topic for a video.
Somali pirates have stock markets for their activities.
One way to look how it would play out, outside of idealistic ancap views, think of moral nihilism, anarchist egoism (Max Stirner), and free markets. There would be a market for everything. Literally everything.
It opens the door for a lot of ideas for novels.
Think of a society where gladiators still exist in the modern world, and people bet on who is going to win or get killed, in some city known for hosting those events, similar to how people see Las Vegas as the place for casinos.
While on the other side of the world, people would see this as something against their moral values, and such businesses would not exist.
As long as it is voluntary, there is no problem with it. Some would have careers as gladiators, fans globally, and people following them like sports nowadays.
Capitalism has a narrower definition than free-market, despite ancaps using it to mean that.
Capitalism refers more to the process of going to capital markets to collect capital, typically as loans, to start a business. Or at least that is how I understand it.
Businesses could start in any shape or form in a free-market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A family that would split a once shared farmland would be obvious. More private units exist now.
However, a growing family that maintains a shared farmland after it was once owned by a smaller family with one distinct owner, would really be where it gets to the cut-off on how the farm is being run now.
It would still remain private if the father's will is for the eldest son to own the farm, or it would have a hierarchy or shared ownership, similar to how a corporation is run, where discussion, voting, or whatever method they use to reach a decision on running the farm, would be implemented. This would be a clear cut-off based on the situation and new mechanism used to run the property, for example.
Do you have any opinions on this? Or does it not matter much to have an opinion on?
I think perhaps the mechanism is where the cutoff is, but I don't think I've thought enough about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If we look at the bigger picture, this war fits exactly the US's Super Imperialism.
Trump wanted to bring back manufacturing, basically gutting out the industrial economy of the world, and wants to spend big to make it happen.
But Powell refused to bring rates down, treasury rates are getting expensive because China is not showing up, and investors are not having much trust in Trump's plan, petrodollar is weak with cheaper oil, he could not end the Russia-Ukraine war.
Despite words about a China war, it would be near impossible and pushing one of the tiny US allies needs more time to cook.
Iran was seen as the weakest of the three, Iran has been historically demonized, and Israel has been salivating over it forever.
This is the US's and Trump's last ditch effort to save the US economy. If this escalates, oil price spikes, which is mostly traded in dollars still, which increases dollar demand, central banks would buy more US bonds, financing Trump's plans.
Ukraine alone was not making the cut, and I think I watched a video somewhere a while ago that the US needs to start another war to fund its empire, which was theorized by that video to be China, but Iran fitted the bill better apparently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
19:10
Israel is a nation-state. I don't think nation here meant nation-state. A nation is something else in politics, generally defined as a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
Israel, as a nation-state, carries the ethos of nationalism, which is to manufacture a nation out of ethnicities that share nothing but a religion and belief in ancient mythology, a process called "nation building."
For example, modern Hebrew is made up from thousands of borrowed words from neighboring Semitic languages, because only a few hundred words survived from ancient Hebrew to form a language.
Zionism existed before the birth of Nazism by decades.
There is a whole rabbit hole of parallel development between nationalism, socialism, and Zionism, which is just manufacturing a Jewish nation out of a religion. It makes sense since back then, nationalism, colonialism, racism, etc. were all the rage. It would be rather shocking if Jewish people in Europe did not develop their own version or reaction.
As secularism was on the rise, some Jewish people thought they could assimilate, but natives resisted that. Leading some to believe that Jewish people would not be respected unless they form a nation and a state for that nation. Basically what Herzl and many early Zionists believed.
It's a whole rabbit hole. If you ever decide to dig deep into it, you'd be surprised and maybe not surprised by many things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think it's a great idea to transmit. Even if we assume the worse, and annihilation happens, there will be no one to mourn our departure.
If we assume invations and exploitation, then it gives us a chance to fight back when we gain the knowledge or power. A worse scenario would be a sufficiently advanced civilization that is aware of our capabilities, and genetically modifies us for their servatitude, sort of similar to what we've done with dogs, but within a single generation.
However, we would still exist in bliss due to how humans would be genetically modified to.
Overall, I think broadcasting messages is rather a great idea. However long it would take for our messages to reach some civilization, it would be enough time for us to either reach a higher level of technological advancement or just evolve backwards to hunter gatherers, and really all the aliens can do is say "there was once a starter civilization here"
The risks don't outweigh the costs for broadcasting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OZTutoh false equivalency.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a completely different historical and political situation. It is not directly comparable to the struggles for independence in the Philippines or Algeria. The conflict is deeply rooted in the history of the region, including the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian territories.
Unlike Algeria, where the struggle for independence resulted in the end of French colonial rule, the situation in Gaza and the West Bank is characterized by a prolonged Israeli occupation. Israel has not withdrawn from these territories and has even expanded its settlements in direct violation of international law. This is fundamentally different from the post-independence situation in Algeria.
Israel is a significantly more powerful and technologically advanced state compared to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The power dynamic is unequal, making it challenging for Palestinians to achieve their goals through armed resistance or negotiations.
The reference to a country "invading" another country oversimplifies the situation. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are not invading Israel; they are seeking an end to the occupation and the recognition of their right to self-determination. The Palestinian struggle is also marked by human rights abuses, including restrictions on movement, house demolitions, and other forms of collective punishment, which are not comparable to the relationship between Algeria and France after independence.
"Algeria doesn't have the destruction of France written into its constitution," but the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories involves complex legal and political disputes. The Israeli government's policies and actions in the West Bank, including settlement expansion, have been widely criticized and deemed illegal under international law. The Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have sought recognition and support for their statehood, rather than destruction, through diplomatic means.
So, even when they are trying to have their statehood of merely Gaza and the West Bank legitimized, it is not at all. In fact, Netanyahu's entire political career is focused on the end of the idea of a Palestinian state. He even stated that he "de facto put an end to the Oslo Accords" which just makes it harder for Palestinians to trust the Israeli government in anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:48 - Seeing how today California has the most diverse and has the least quality of life along with more people wanting to leave than move in, I'd argue they were right.
2:44 - People that share the same race and culture prefer living amongst those that share the same race and culture? Who would have thought?! Detriot is the ultimate example of that. A Black majority city with blacks living amongst blacks because they want to. Besides, you didn't show California.
5:18 - Wow, it is as if most managers and higher education graduates from business schools and non-liberal arts schools are generally people with higher IQ who are predominately Asian, and white.
6:11 - Who could have guessed that the majority population will have a hard time finding friends of other racial groups? If I had 10 people living together: 6 whites, 2 blacks, and 2 Hispanic, and then wait until they all become friends, and then proceed to criticize all 6 whites for having more white friends than other racial groups, I am retarded.
It is only expected that most people will have friends from their groups and when the population doesn't have equal parts for each racial group, it is only expected. It is not a problem.
Vox and its telescopic philanthropy. Your "shedding light on social issues" is completely superficial and aimed to just give shock and gasps for maximum viewership revenue.
1
-
@UnsaughtDroog
Because those are Israeli hostages, and Hamas can easily just show that IDF did this if they lied, and also I doubt all members of the IDF involved in this can be hushed. It only takes one whistle blower.
This can also be deliberate because they failed in recusing them, and thus, having them unalived is better than being hostages. Look up the Hannibal Directive.
I bet you also don't know about the attempt by the IDF special forces to released another hostage, I believe last week, that also failed. That one, they only said that he was unalived, without giving details about the circumstances.
Hamas, in a press conference and also in a video they released, claimed that the special forces were using an ambulance as a disguise, to get to the area. But you don't hear those or get those because they are available in Arabic, and because Western media only reports that the IDF or Israel says. Exclusively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solschwarz5169 just be comfortable googling those words + Israel and read some articles.
White phosphorus being used by other armies doesn’t suddenly make it ok.
International Humanitarian Law sets out clear rules. For example, the use of force must be proportionate to the military advantage sought, and excessive harm to civilians or civilian property is prohibited. Yet, the amount of destruction in Gaza shows the use of force was way in excess.
Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which regulates the use of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, in armed conflicts, prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons in areas with a concentration of civilians.
Yet, Israel never sees itself in the wrong, and throws some excuses that they have some intel that some Hamas combatant might be hiding among civilians.
The law is clear. It’s a concentration of civilians within civilian property. There are a million ways to do it, yet they do it in excess use of force, and see civilians as some collateral damage.
That is besides that intel is not evidence, and we’ve seen many times how wrong intel is.
This is not some attack on Israeli intel. Intelligence is merely the telephone game, but more complex in multiple media.
False intel got the US into the Iraq war for example, and is often used by politicians as some “infallible” proof when it is not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The US have long sabotaged, backstabbed, and betrayed Russia, ever since the USSR dissolved.
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972), the US withdrew in 2002.
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (1987), the US withdrew in 2019.
SALT I and SALT II Negotiations, part of the ABM treaty above, SALT II was NEVER ratified by the US.
NATO Expansion, Missile Defense Deployments in Europe, etc.
And these are just the official and documented ones, let alone all the CIA shenanigans, economical and geopolitical issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JamesMorris-l8b What are you on about?
Most were absentee Arab owners, and land ownership they bought was tiny. You can look up the map: Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (based on 1945 data)
Even those plots of lands bought had people living in them that they displaced, per their own admission:
Chaim Kalvarisky was Polish-born, and settled from 1890. He was part of the "Jewish Colonization Association", which purchased land and encouraged Jewish settlement in Palestine. Even with the small plots of lands he bought of from absentee Arab owners, he had to displace and disposses tribes that were already living on there. In his admission:
"The question of the Arabs first appeared to me in all its seriousness immediately after the first purchase of land I made here. I had to dispossess the Arab residents of their land for the purpose of settling our brothers. The doleful dirge of the Bedouin men and women who gathered outside the sheikh’s tent that evening, before they left the village of Shamsin, next to Yama, which is Yavniel, did not stop ringing in my ears for a long time thereafter. I sat in the tent and concluded my negotiation with Sheikh Fadul Madalika. The Bedouin men and women gathered around the fire, prepared coffee for me and for the rest of the guests. And at the same time they sang songs of mourning for their bad fortune, which forced them to leave the cradle of their birth. Those songs cut through my heart and I realized how tied the Bedouin is to his land."
He had been dispossessing Arabs for twenty-five year, and he had to turn them off the land because the Jewish public demanded it of him, Kalvarisky said, and throughout his life he argued that Z1onism had missed a chance for peace.
Despite being welcomed, as he admitted that Arabs everywhere received him warmly, “I must confess to you that I found many intelligent young people among them. The Jerusalem Arabs have nothing to be ashamed of when they compare their young people to the Jews.” All that was required of the Jews, he argued, was “to behave like a progressive cultured nation, and not to make any distinction between one religion and another.”
But alas, the Z1onist movement felt otherwise: it was striving to create a Jewish majority in Palestine and establish a state based on European culture.
That is also aside from the fact that most Palestinians are literally just converts from Judaism to Christianity and Islam, and there is genetic data to show that.
Even if you want to go by your Bible, god promised it to the seed not to the religion, and blonde blue-eyed converts over millennia are not of Abraham's seed.
If anything, you're abetting against god's will by taking the interpretations of a man above god's word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shalevshimoni5008 that is the same narrative before the 1980s declassifications of 1948 Israeli documents, which showed the contrary, and had to be reclassified as top secret after it exposed the falsehood of that narrative (which judging by your comment, is still propagated to this day).
A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948. It lists direct, hostile Jewish (Haganah/IDF) operations against Arab settlements as the most important cause.
Other reasons caused by Zionists include:
- The effect of the Haganah/IDF hostile operations (massacres) against nearby Arab settlements. Scaring them to flee.
- Operations of Jewish dissidents , like Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lohamei Herut Yisrael.
- Ultimate expulsion orders by Jewish forces.
- Jewish psychological warfare, aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants. Like when the Irgun broadcasted on the radio in Arabic warning urban Arabs that "typhus, cholera and similar diseases would break out heavily among them in April and May" of 1948, or when they instigated Jewish community leaders among Arabs to exploit their trust and tell them to flee. Yigal Allon, the Palmach commander, describing such a campaign: "I gathered the Jewish mukhtars, who had ties with the different Arab villages, and I asked them to whisper in the ears of several Arabs that giant Jewish reinforcements had reached the Galilee and were about to clean out the villages of the Hula, [and] to advise them, as friends, to flee while they could. And the rumour spread throughout the Hula that the time had come to flee. The flight encompassed tens of thousands. The stratagem fully achieved its objective."
All this happened before any other Arab army entered the war, which was a reaction to these and more crimes committed by Zionist paramilitaries that later formed the IDF.
And this is just a glimpse of what was committed. Hundreds of villages were destroyed with their inhabitants murdered and displaced, and tons more crimes committed against Palestinians by Zionists, it is no wonder Moshe Dayan said:
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because Geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either … There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” (Moshe Dayan, Address to the Technion, Haifa, as quoted in Haaretz, 4-4-1969)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlchemistOfNirnroot that ratio is simply wrong. Israel simply removed all men from the number of casualties. They consider any male death as a threat, regardless of whether they are affiliated.
And what do you mean “is pretty average for these types of wars”?
You have some stats and war experience to tell us about? Please enlighten us.
The only person changing definitions and giving them sanctity and blasphemous status is you here.
The ICJ ruled it plausible, and demanded Israel do all it can to prevent it.
So what did they do? February saw half the aid of the January.
Northern Gazans are already in a famine, and people waiting for aid just today got struck.
Even if it is not, Israel is doing all it can to make it one. That is if we ignore all the statements they’ve made since the beginning, where they tell their people one thing, and tell Western media another thing.
Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:
1. Unaliving members of the group (actively being done by Israel against Palestinians with disregard)
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(Famines, decomposed infants in incubators, etc.)
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(Actively being done, northern Gazans already perishing from famines, and denied aid)
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
(Hospitals already raided are prevented from reopening, miscarriages widespread with famines and lack of medicine)
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
(Won’t be surprised if they did that also)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nubtube7313 I don't think the conflict is centered on religion at all. That is quite inaccurate.
The Zionist project was a project of nation-building, which is the process of creating a national identity based around assigning a common language (Ashkenazim-accent modern Hebrew), culture (appropriating Middle Eastern culture, and adopting more Middle Eastern sounding names), history (secularizing religious history into an ethnic and national one), and symbols (often by making religious symbols national) to create a sense of belonging to a collective.
This was a movement that started in the late 19th century, and nationalism and a nation's self-determination was a growing political philosophy back in the 19th century. Throughout the 19th century, nationalist movements and uprisings occurred in various regions, including Italy, Germany, Greece, and Hungary. Intellectuals, writers, and political leaders began to articulate the idea that each nation should have its own sovereign state.
Obviously, since this was in Europe, it did not grant that same right to colonies, and were quite selective on who gets that right and for what reasons. Poland was only granted that in the aftermaths of WWI for example, because the Allies wanted a country to act as a buffer state and help prevent any one major power from dominating Eastern Europe. But, I digress.
Zionism, as a political movement, sought to create a national identity out of Judaism.
However, it did that in a plot of land already occupied by its indigenous population. In fact, people that are direct ancestors that merely converted to different religions through their history, but denied that history because it has been defined in the Zionist project as belonging to one religious group.
This is a weird amalgamation of religious nationalism in a purely secular framework, where 2/3 of Israelis don't believe in god.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ackman is right assuming that the stock market will keep growing.
It will cost a country about: (number of births/year) * 6750 dollars a year.
In case of the US: (3,791,712) * 6750 = $25,594,056,000
About $26 billion a year. That's like $10 for the government.
This will make each individual person own: 6750 * 2^(60/5) = $27,648,000 by retirement.
Assumptions here are that people will retire at 60 and that the $6750 investment into a growth ETF, like $VUG for example, will double every 5 years.
This is not even factoring in DRIP, dividend reinvestment.
And if you decide to not cash it out and live off the dividends, you'll be making $398,131.20 a year doing absolutely nothing, and this will still double every 5 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, many protesting Israelis are concerned over Israel's security and international perception.
Many have goodwills, but still obfuscated by indoctrination from their education system up to the mandatory two years of conscription to see it as it is. Even the first caller mirrored much of that unfortunately.
However, many works of Israelis, like Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, broke out of Zionist indoctrination. Pappe had access to the Israeli 1948 archives that were opened during the 80s, and later reclassified as "top secret" after much was exposed. For example, it was denied that the Nakba has anything to do with Zionist paramilitaries atrocities by Israel, and that Palestinians simply left, until the archives exposed that. Benny Morris, another Israeli historian, also looked and studied the same archives and reached a different conclusion, which is the Ben-Gurion and the Zionist paramilitaries didn't go far enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem of mono-ethinic states as implemented back then, or as they were called, nation-states, is that for many regions of the world, it would be impossible to draw borders such that nations have their own nation-states.
For example, the Balkans have cities that are multi-ethnic, and drawing borders between the ethnic groups living in those cities such that you'd have a single, continious line that goes around is impossible.
With its implementation, what ended up happening is ethnic minorities existing within the borders of newly created states, and those are easily targeted.
The way self-determination was implemented back then was also mainly focused on trying to mitigate the chance of another war in Europe, which is why it was not implemented in the colonies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michiganborn8303
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (specifically Article 3, paragraph 1, iirc), which applies to both international and non-international armed conflicts.
“*Persons* taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction.”
Additional Protocol II, Article 4, Article 13, Article 6, which (as many articles do) explicitly says “persons” and not “soldiers” for example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nah, even in the Bible, it says it was Canaanites who were living there, then Israelites said their sky daddy told them this is their promised land, and they should invade and take over.
Imagine being a Canaanite living in that land for centuries, all your forefathers lived there, and then some random people show up, murder all men, women, and children, displace your population, and claim their sky daddy told them this land was promised to them.
Then thousands of years later, history repeats itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leightonmckenzie7678
making a living off a podcase means you have the luxury of time? I think you never ran a podcast that makes many videos a week. There are many things that go into a podcast: planning, scheduling guests, recording, editing, marketing, audience engagement, and more. Success usually increases these demands rather than alleviating them.
Imagine saying a late-night talk show host or news anchor has the "luxury of time" because they are successful. In reality, their schedule is packed with production meetings, writing sessions, and rehearsals, leaving little room for deep dives into the background of every guest or topic.
And no, it is not his job. A neutral interviewer who lets guests express their views without explicit judgment is fundamentally different from a fact-checker or a debate moderator. This sets an impractical standard. Consulting experts for every guest or topic is resource-intensive and impractical, especially for a high-output podcast.
A documentary interviewer doesn’t always challenge the people they interview, and there are many documentaries about bollocks.
It is not his job to challenge. You're assuming that he is both qualified to do so and that this aligns with the podcast's purpose. Neutral questioning encourages open dialogue, allowing the audience to form their own judgments. Turning every conversation into a cross-examination could alienate guests and change the nature of the show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscar407 unfortunately, as much as we’d like to believe that with the internet, everyone can find the important news, most don’t and still get their news from media.
You won’t be seeing Gaza streams with millions of views overnight.
And also, due to the Israeli military censor’s list of what is and what is not allowed to be published, they cab simply refuse anything that passes by them from an AlJazeera affiliated journalist to be automatically denied.
According to one AlJazeera journalist, paraphrasing here, 90% of what is recorded is not allowed to be broadcasted by the military, edited, cut, or confiscated upon review.
We take the internet, food, electricity and water for granted, but for Gazan’s it’s not so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solschwarz5169 you’re pulling these numbers out of nowhere. The ratio in WW2 is around 2:5 and 2:7, or 1:3 on average.
In WW2, there were around 50-55 million civilian casualties, and 16-20 million military personnel casualties.
Even if we accept this figure of 2/3 were civilians, which is ridiculous because it simply takes out women and children from the total and claims all men killed were combatants, that ratio is higher than the average civilian death toll in conflicts around the world during the 20th century. This ratio of civilian deaths is also higher than in past Israeli campaigns in Gaza, from 2012 to 2022. In fact, in the previous decade, around 5,100 civilian casualties were reported, and in the current conflict, this has been way surpassed.
Also, the Ministry of Health in Gaza repeatedly releases reports of the names, ages, addresses, and even ID numbers of those that perished so far.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-vu4it7si7m Yeah, they said:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
Oh wait! Whoops, that was Theodor Herzl in 1895.
Maybe this one:
"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a J-wish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)
Nah, that was Ben-Gurion.
What about this:
“There is a fundamental difference in quality between Jew and native,” he stated. Oh, my bad, that was Weizmann, the first president of Israel.
He believed that it was neither possible nor worthwhile to negotiate with the Arabs of Palestine.
Or maybe H@mas charter from the 80s that they already replaced, that said:
"From the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea, there should be only Israeli sovereignty."
Ah, I am being clumsy. That was actually the Likud charter from the 70s.
I bet H@mas supporters got something to say:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
Ah, my notes say that was Netanyahu, the longest lasting PM in Israeli history.
He must've been a very popular guy in his country!
What do you think the result of this constant negligence and arr0gance would lead to?
1
-
@truthgiver8286
Hmmm, yeah. Since the beginning they wanted to share!
In 1895, Herzl himself wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
Oh wait, I meant to quote Ben-Gurion!
As WWI was winding down, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Z1onism's ultimate objective is to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:
"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)
In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:
"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan"
The Likud, and most of Israeli society, and still marching forth with this vision.
Maybe Weizmann would have something to contribute!
From the very beginning, Weizman said “There is a fundamental difference in quality between Jew and native."
He believed that it was neither possible nor worthwhile to negotiate with the Arabs of Palestine.
He is such a friendly gu- oh, wait...
What do you think the result of this constant negligence and arr0gance would lead to?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Georgia’s economy shrank dramatically. By the mid-1990s, government spending on healthcare was extremely low, hovering around 2–3% of GDP compared to roughly 10% in many Western countries. During this period, reforms pushed by international lenders and the IMF forced Georgia to adopt austerity measures and take on external debt, which at one point grew to around 50–60% of GDP. With a large slice of government revenue dedicated to debt servicing, often around 15–20% of the budget, there was little left to invest in public services, including healthcare. This meant that even highly skilled professionals, such as doctors, were paid very low wages; reports from that era indicate that an average Georgian doctor might earn around $200–300 a month, a stark contrast to the multi-thousand-dollar salaries seen in the West.
Meanwhile, the interest and principal repayments on these loans flowed to international creditors and financial institutions based largely in Western economies. These repayments, along with the profitable investments made possible by the lending, allowed Western economies to maintain higher spending on public services and provide their workers with much better compensation. Essentially, while Georgia was forced to allocate its limited funds to debt repayment and cutbacks in critical sectors, Western nations and their financial institutions were able to reinvest those funds at home, further deepening the economic divide between the two regions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Was it self-imposed?"
No, Ben-Gurion made it clear that getting any land was merely the beginning of expansion.
Here is what Morris (who is a Zionist and believes that Palestinians are “psychopaths” and “serial killers”) says in Righteous Victims, p.138:
"[Weizmann and Ben-Gurion] saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine… [Ben-Gurion] wrote to his son, Amos: ‘[A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning… Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state … will serve as a very potent lever in our efforts to redeem the whole country."
"Did the Palestinians have a choice whether to go to war or accept the UN partition? Was the UN partition fair?"
They were already being "cleansed" as Zionist leaders used to call it. The partition was unfair, where despite owning a fraction of the land, Zionists were granted a majority of the land.
It was rather the outburst of displaced Palestinians that ended up involving other neighboring states, and even then, they were not allowed to cross the 1947 Palestinian borders by their colonizers. Zionist militias were also better equipped and had fresh experience coming from the second world war.
"Are the Palestinians nursing legitimate grievances from 1947-48 or are they just poor losers of a war who refuse to move on? This appears to be the heart of the issue."
Once you read up on the Nakba, you'll know more. Massacres, from Tantura (which has a great documentary available on YT) to Deir Yassin and villages like Huj which despite helping Zionists and sheltering them was forcibly displaced and their descendants live as refugees in Gaza to this day.
Even a document produced by the IDF Intelligence Service titled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" dated 30 June 1948 lists this as the main cause of displacement:
Direct, hostile Jewish (Haganah/IDF) operations against Arab settlements.
Look up and read up Richard Forer letter "Cutting through the confusion about Israel/Palestine", it will cover everything.
It's a quick read too, and has a section which covers Alan Dershowitz as well, coincidently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, so many things were normalized in the sexual revolution of the 60s that we are just now seeing its societal effects on people.
More to come from all the drugs being taken for ADHD and such.
Men also have their fair share of all of this stuff. The normalization of pornography and daily masturbation being one. It is a widespread addiction that is being marketed as “good” and “healthy”. Even claims that it prevents prostate cancer. You can tell men to try to stop, and they’ll have a very hard time to.
Cutting those off had such a drastic effect on my personality and especially how I viewed women.
It might sound weird, but I finally can see women as humans with life experiences instead of a sexual means to an end that I had to constantly stop myself from seeing that way.
I think a lot, for both sexes, was normalized when it has a lot of harmful effects on how we view each other, and it is saddening to say the least, that the fingers are being pointed elsewhere instead of what has been normalized in the last few decades.
Some are deeming those fighting against it as bad people, going off about how it is morally fine, when instead the argument being made is that “hey, this thing has some bad effects.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ggelsrinc You're assuming fires were shot, first of all, and then saying the army decided to just shoot at the first thing that moves? You know how incompetent you're painting them as? You're making excuses.
It was a drone attack, on a deconfliction zone that they communicated with the army about. A commanding officer approval is required before the shot, this is a military we're talking about.
Besides, modern drones with massive military budgets do have sophisticated night vision. Just look up the consumer drone Autel EVO Max 4N.
Friendly fire isn't rare in Gaza is quite an understatment. Simply look up the numbers Israelis managed to pile on within 6 months and compare it to Ukraine, where is it rather rare, and simply making an assumption that reporting it "hurts the war effort" is not really helpful. You're making a claim with no evidence of so many Ukrainian friendly fires, from military to aid workers an civilians to excuse the Israelis here.
Heck, over 200 aid workers already, and their own hostages even.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lanatab Exactly. They were not "running towards" the soldiers. Tens of meters away is pretty far.
Also, guess what, the IDF is where Western Media, often with PR edits, gets all its information while Israeli media gets it uncensored.
Israeli media gave a more detailed account. The mass circulation daily Yediot Ahronot said that according to an investigation into the incident, a sniper identified the hostages as suspects when they emerged, despite them not being armed, and shot two of the three.
Soldiers followed the third when he ran into the building and hid, shouting at him to come out, and at least one soldier shot him when he emerged from a staircase, Yediot Ahronot said.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz gave a similar account based on a preliminary investigation, saying the soldiers who followed the third hostage believed he was a Hamas member trying to pull them into a trap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Beardman770 Do you even know how this all started?
In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
What do you think the early Zionist settlers were engaging in?
Chaim Kalvarisky was Polish-born, and settled from 1890. He was part of the "Jewish Colonization Association", which purchased land and encouraged Jewish settlement in Palestine. Even with the small plots of lands he bought of from absentee Arab owners, he had to displace and disposses tribes that were already living on there. In his admission:
"The question of the Arabs first appeared to me in all its seriousness immediately after the first purchase of land I made here. I had to dispossess the Arab residents of their land for the purpose of settling our brothers. The doleful dirge of the Bedouin men and women who gathered outside the sheikh’s tent that evening, before they left the village of Shamsin, next to Yama, which is Yavniel, did not stop ringing in my ears for a long time thereafter. I sat in the tent and concluded my negotiation with Sheikh Fadul Madalika. The Bedouin men and women gathered around the fire, prepared coffee for me and for the rest of the guests. And at the same time they sang songs of mourning for their bad fortune, which forced them to leave the cradle of their birth. Those songs cut through my heart and I realized how tied the Bedouin is to his land."
He had been dispossessing Arabs for twenty-five year, and he had to turn them off the land because the Jewish public demanded it of him, Kalvarisky said, and throughout his life he argued that Zionism had missed a chance for peace.
Despite being welcomed, as he admitted that Arabs everywhere received him warmly, “I must confess to you that I found many intelligent young people among them. The Jerusalem Arabs have nothing to be ashamed of when they compare their young people to the Jews.” All that was required of the Jews, he argued, was “to behave like a progressive cultured nation, and not to make any distinction between one religion and another.”
But alas, the Zionist movement felt otherwise: it was striving to create a Jewish majority in Palestine and establish a state based on European culture.
As WWI was winding down, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Zionism's ultimate objective is to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:
"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)
In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:
"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan"
A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919 and after WWI ended, Ben-Gurion envisioned future Jewish and Palestinian Arab relations as follows:
"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs."
Weizmann from the very beginning said “There is a fundamental difference in quality between Jew and native,” he stated.
He believed that it was neither possible nor worthwhile to negotiate with the Arabs of Palestine.
What do you think the result of this constant negligence and arrogance would lead to? A submissive population?
1
-
@Beardman770 (Hope this won't get removed by the yt censors)
Do you even know how this all started?
In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Z1onism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
What do you think the early Z1onist settlers were engaging in?
Chaim Kalvarisky was Polish-born, and settled from 1890. He was part of the "Jewish Colonization Association", which purchased land and encouraged Jewish settlement in Palestine. Even with the small plots of lands he bought of from absentee Arab owners, he had to displace and disposses tribes that were already living on there. In his admission:
"The question of the Arabs first appeared to me in all its seriousness immediately after the first purchase of land I made here. I had to dispossess the Arab residents of their land for the purpose of settling our brothers. The doleful dirge of the Bedouin men and women who gathered outside the sheikh’s tent that evening, before they left the village of Shamsin, next to Yama, which is Yavniel, did not stop ringing in my ears for a long time thereafter. I sat in the tent and concluded my negotiation with Sheikh Fadul Madalika. The Bedouin men and women gathered around the fire, prepared coffee for me and for the rest of the guests. And at the same time they sang songs of mourning for their bad fortune, which forced them to leave the cradle of their birth. Those songs cut through my heart and I realized how tied the Bedouin is to his land."
He had been dispossessing Arabs for twenty-five year, and he had to turn them off the land because the Jewish public demanded it of him, Kalvarisky said, and throughout his life he argued that Z1onism had missed a chance for peace.
Despite being welcomed, as he admitted that Arabs everywhere received him warmly, “I must confess to you that I found many intelligent young people among them. The Jerusalem Arabs have nothing to be ashamed of when they compare their young people to the Jews.” All that was required of the Jews, he argued, was “to behave like a progressive cultured nation, and not to make any distinction between one religion and another.”
But alas, the Z1onist movement felt otherwise: it was striving to create a Jewish majority in Palestine and establish a state based on European culture.
As WWI was winding down, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Z1onism's ultimate objective is to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:
"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)
In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:
"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan"
A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919 and after WWI ended, Ben-Gurion envisioned future Jewish and Palestinian Arab relations as follows:
"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs."
Weizmann from the very beginning said “There is a fundamental difference in quality between Jew and native,” he stated.
He believed that it was neither possible nor worthwhile to negotiate with the Arabs of Palestine.
What do you think the result of this constant negligence and arrogance would lead to?
1
-
@Beardman770 (I'll split this to parts, since there is a word or two yt doesn't like)
Do you even know how this all started?
In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Z1onism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
What do you think the early Z1onist settlers were engaging in?
Chaim Kalvarisky was Polish-born, and settled from 1890. He was part of the "Jewish Colonization Association", which purchased land and encouraged Jewish settlement in Palestine. Even with the small plots of lands he bought of from absentee Arab owners, he had to displace and disposses tribes that were already living on there. In his admission:
"The question of the Arabs first appeared to me in all its seriousness immediately after the first purchase of land I made here. I had to dispossess the Arab residents of their land for the purpose of settling our brothers. The doleful dirge of the Bedouin men and women who gathered outside the sheikh’s tent that evening, before they left the village of Shamsin, next to Yama, which is Yavniel, did not stop ringing in my ears for a long time thereafter. I sat in the tent and concluded my negotiation with Sheikh Fadul Madalika. The Bedouin men and women gathered around the fire, prepared coffee for me and for the rest of the guests. And at the same time they sang songs of mourning for their bad fortune, which forced them to leave the cradle of their birth. Those songs cut through my heart and I realized how tied the Bedouin is to his land."
He had been dispossessing Arabs for twenty-five year, and he had to turn them off the land because the Jewish public demanded it of him, Kalvarisky said, and throughout his life he argued that Z1onism had missed a chance for peace.
Despite being welcomed, as he admitted that Arabs everywhere received him warmly, “I must confess to you that I found many intelligent young people among them. The Jerusalem Arabs have nothing to be ashamed of when they compare their young people to the Jews.” All that was required of the Jews, he argued, was “to behave like a progressive cultured nation, and not to make any distinction between one religion and another.”
But alas, the Z1onist movement felt otherwise: it was striving to create a Jewish majority in Palestine and establish a state based on European culture.
1
-
@Beardman770 What do you think the early Z1onist settlers were engaging in?
Chaim Kalvarisky was Polish-born, and settled from 1890. He was part of the "Jewish Colonization Association", which purchased land and encouraged Jewish settlement in Palestine. Even with the small plots of lands he bought of from absentee Arab owners, he had to displace and disposses tribes that were already living on there. In his admission:
"The question of the Arabs first appeared to me in all its seriousness immediately after the first purchase of land I made here. I had to dispossess the Arab residents of their land for the purpose of settling our brothers. The doleful dirge of the Bedouin men and women who gathered outside the sheikh’s tent that evening, before they left the village of Shamsin, next to Yama, which is Yavniel, did not stop ringing in my ears for a long time thereafter. I sat in the tent and concluded my negotiation with Sheikh Fadul Madalika. The Bedouin men and women gathered around the fire, prepared coffee for me and for the rest of the guests. And at the same time they sang songs of mourning for their bad fortune, which forced them to leave the cradle of their birth. Those songs cut through my heart and I realized how tied the Bedouin is to his land."
He had been dispossessing Arabs for twenty-five year, and he had to turn them off the land because the Jewish public demanded it of him, Kalvarisky said, and throughout his life he argued that Z1onism had missed a chance for peace.
Despite being welcomed, as he admitted that Arabs everywhere received him warmly, “I must confess to you that I found many intelligent young people among them. The Jerusalem Arabs have nothing to be ashamed of when they compare their young people to the Jews.” All that was required of the Jews, he argued, was “to behave like a progressive cultured nation, and not to make any distinction between one religion and another.”
But alas, the Z1onist movement felt otherwise: it was striving to create a Jewish majority in Palestine and establish a state based on European culture.
1
-
@Beardman770 As WWI was winding down, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Z1onism's ultimate objective is to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:
"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)
In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:
"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan"
The Likud, and most of Israeli society, and still marching forth with this vision.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Beardman770
What do you think the early Z1onist settlers were engaging in?
Chaim Kalvarisky was Polish-born, and settled from 1890. He was part of the "Jėwish Çolónization Association", which purchased land and encouraged Jėwish settlement in Palestine. Even with the small plots of lands he bought of from absentee Àŗáb owners, he had to displace and disposses tribes that were already living on there. In his admission:
"The question of the Àŗábs first appeared to me in all its seriousness immediately after the first purchase of land I made here. I had to dispossess the Àŗáb residents of their land for the purpose of settling our brothers. The doleful dirge of the Bedouin men and women who gathered outside the sheikh’s tent that evening, before they left the village of Shamsin, next to Yama, which is Yavniel, did not stop ringing in my ears for a long time thereafter. I sat in the tent and concluded my negotiation with Sheikh Fadul Madalika. The Bedouin men and women gathered around the fire, prepared coffee for me and for the rest of the guests. And at the same time they sang songs of mourning for their bad fortune, which forced them to leave the cradle of their birth. Those songs cut through my heart and I realized how tied the Bedouin is to his land."
He had been dispossessing Àŗábs for twenty-five year, and he had to turn them off the land because the Jėwish public demanded it of him, Kalvarisky said, and throughout his life he argued that Z1onism had missed a chance for peace.
Despite being welcomed, as he admitted that Àŗábs everywhere received him warmly, “I must confess to you that I found many intelligent young people among them. The Jerusalem Àŗábs have nothing to be ashamed of when they compare their young people to the Jėws.” All that was required of the Jėws, he argued, was “to behave like a progressive cultured nation, and not to make any distinction between one religion and another.”
But alas, the Z1onist movement felt otherwise: it was striving to create a Jėwish majority in Palestine and establish a state based on European culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Summer-tv7rz you’re really being idealistic here? No wonder no one takes you seriously.
The ANC took hostages and even executed them.
We can go even further back during Zionist paramilitaries before 1948.
The Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, attacked the Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem, which was used as a British military and administrative headquarters. During the attack, hostages were taken, including British officers and civilians. The Lehi demanded the release of Jewish prisoners in exchange for the hostages’ safety, or else they’d be executed.
Irgun kidnapped two British Army Intelligence Corps sergeants, Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice, in retaliation for the British authorities’ detention of Irgun members. The hostages were held captive, and despite international pressure, Irgun executed the sergeants in July 1947.
During the Nakba, there were incidents of kidnappings and hostage taking as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@factnotfiction5915
Uranium constitutes 1.8 ppm of the earth crust. That is roughly 100 trillion tonnes.
Economically exploitable reserves are currently ~6 million tonnes. With improvements of technology that number will increase. The ocean alone contains a few billions tons of it. Seawater extraction of uranium is already done, but it is not cost competitive yet. Other abundant, but not yet exploited resources are uranium bearing phosphate rocks. As for now uranium is almost exclusively sourced from pitchblende.
0.7% of uranium is fissile uranium-235. That’s the isotope that is used in nuclear power plants (usually in the form of uranium dioxide, where the U-235 has been enriched to a few %).
0.7% of 6 million tonnes is ~40,000 tonnes. One tonne of uranium-235 yields ~80,000 trillion J (80,000 TJ) of thermal energy. So we have 3,6 billion TJ contained in currently known reserves. Assuming 30% overall efficiency that is ~1 billion TJ.
We use 600 million TJ energy every year, one quarter of which is for power production, one tenth of which is generated by nuclear power plants. That would be 15 million TJ per year.
So my estimate is that known pitchblende reserves alone can supply nuclear energy for another 70 years.
Keep in mind energy demand increases, and even if all the uranium is accessible, we will need more to power the entire earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nwankwosampson-xk3jc According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, Israeli exports to Qatar amounted to $509,000 in 2012. Imports from Qatar amounted to $353,000 in 2013, mainly plastics.
So if anything, Israel is benefiting from these trades more than Qatar.
Aside from that, in November 2021 Israel and Qatar signed an agreement allowing Qatar to trade in diamonds and Israeli merchants to enter Qatar and open offices.
So, claiming that Al Jazeera, a Qatari news agency, is a spokesperson for Iran, because Qatar doesn’t recognize Israel is quite a stretch to say the least.
Qatar is also known to be one of the most neutral and diplomatic states in the region, due to its small size and small population, so it always tries to keep good relationships with everyone, regardless of how hard it can be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're no different from Christians claiming the US is anti-Christian, Muslims claiming everything is Islamophobic, or any other group claiming another as racist or whatever.
It's an overused word, and lost its value.
There was never equality in Israel, let alone that you missed the point of income inequality and claiming it is antisemitism. Then you proceed to say throw an irrelevant whataboutism.
Arab-Israelis are treated as second class citizens, and that is a legal fact in Israel. Examples, the Nation-State Law, passed in 2018, prioritizes the Jewish character of the state over equality for all its citizens, including Arab-Israelis, the Law of Return grants automatic citizenship to Jews who immigrate to Israel, while Palestinian refugees and their descendants are generally not allowed to return to their former homes. Marriage laws are against inter-faith marriage. Israeli law has restrictions on the reunification of Palestinian families.
Absentee property law, enacted in 1950 with an innocent name, allows the Israeli government to seize and manage property owned by Palestinians who were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, often referred to as the Nakba (catastrophe).
Jewish National Fund (JNF) land. The JNF owns ("legally" stolen) a significant amount of land in Israel, and its charter states that this land is reserved for the benefit of the Jewish people. Also, disparities in funding and resources between Jewish and Arab schools in Israel.
That is beyond the discriminatory and racist attitudes among Jews in Israel towards non-Jews, and other problems that I haven't even begun to mention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leagarner3675
The one stated by Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and former National Security Director:
“If Israel’s goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured such quiet for a generation.”
And Amira Hass, as reported in Ha’aretz: “The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.”
However, Israel never did that or plans to. Especially with the acceleration of settlement building since the 7th of Ocotber. The Likud party is founded in 1977, before H*mas by 10 years, on the basis of their platform's "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Gaza has been a closed military area since 1967. Its citizens have nowhere to go to flee Israeli bombs and rockets. I suggest you look up Israel’s Dahiya Doctrine (or strategy), which is designed to punish a civilian society for the actions of its leaders (a war crime). As General Gadi Eisenkot said after Lebanon:
"We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized."
Israel’s most eminent military strategist, Zeev Schiff, said: “the Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously… the army … has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets … [but] purposely attacked civilian targets.”
Former Chief of Staff Mordecai Gur, a moderate, admitted that Israel always targeted civilians. Rafael Eitan, chief of staff during Israel’s destruction of Lebanese society in the early 1980s, was an extreme hawk who served for years as Ariel Sharon’s second-in-command. He was responsible for the murders of hundreds of Egyptian PoWs at the end of the Suez War. He proposed that for every incident of stone throwing Israel should build 10 settlements. He said “the only good Arab is a [unalive] Arab”. He was founder of the extreme right ultra-nationalist Tzomet party (Movement for Zionist Renewal). Later in life he admitted ordering his troops to brutalize prisoners and impose collective punishment upon Palestinians (both war crimes). He said: “I don’t believe in peace, because if they had done to us what we did to them we’d never agree to make peace.”
Think of the implications of that statement.
And Israeli conduct in negotiations is well-known a well. As former Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence General Yehoshafat Harkabi:
“We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism.”
1
-
@leagarner3675 Easy. The one stated by Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and former National Security Director:
“If Israel’s goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured such quiet for a generation.”
And Amira Hass, as reported in Ha’aretz: “The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.”
However, Israel never did that or plans to.
Especially with the acceleration of settlement building since the 7th of Ocotber. The Likud party is founded in 1977, before H*mas by 10 years, on the basis of their platform's "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Gaza has been a closed military area since 1967. Its citizens have nowhere to go to flee Israeli bombs and rockets. I suggest you look up Israel’s Dahiya Doctrine (or strategy), which is designed to punish a civilian society for the actions of its leaders (a war crime). As General Gadi Eisenkot said after Lebanon:
"We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized."
Israel’s most eminent military strategist, Zeev Schiff, said: “the Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously… the army … has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets … [but] purposely attacked civilian targets.”
Former Chief of Staff Mordecai Gur, a moderate, admitted that Israel always targeted civilians. Rafael Eitan, chief of staff during Israel’s destruction of Lebanese society in the early 1980s, was an extreme hawk who served for years as Ariel Sharon’s second-in-command. He was responsible for the m*rders of hundreds of Egyptian PoWs at the end of the Suez War. He proposed that for every incident of stone throwing Israel should build 10 settlements. He said “the only good Arab is a [unalive] Arab”. He was founder of the extreme right ultra-nationalist Tzomet party (Movement for Zionist Renewal). Later in life he admitted ordering his troops to brutalize prisoners and impose collective punishment upon Palestinians (both war crimes). He said: “I don’t believe in peace, because if they had done to us what we did to them we’d never agree to make peace.”
Think of the implications of that statement.
And Israeli conduct in negotiations is well-known a well. As former Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence General Yehoshafat Harkabi:
“We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1