In their perception, Britain turned against the Zionists around 1939 or so (White paper) and sided with the Arabs in opposing a Jewish state after that. So they mean “Independence” as independence from Britain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine
"we'll never be able to accomplish fascism in the US because our base of suburban Fox News watchers are stupid and incurious about political theory" is a pretty amusing premise
Free Palestine
(Bum-Bum-Bum)
From the river to the sea
THE SEA
THE SEA
ba-da-ba-da-ba
Thanks everyone for the responses. I've learned a lot, and I'm sorry for any offense I caused.
Thank you for this response, and for your other ones in this thread as well.
This passage in particular really gave me some needed perspective:
There are no "uncontacted tribes", everyone has been in touch with their neighbors the whole time, for as long as there have been humans. Every part of the world, except Antarctica and a very small number of islands, has been inhabited by humans a very long time, with Polynesia being one of the last places humans arrived at a few thousand years ago. Humans have been in NA for at least 30,000 years, Australia for at least 40k but probably longer, in Europe for at least 50k. Even the famous North Sentinelese have had more and less contact with their neighbors over prior centuries. Their current closed borders are a modern policy decision made by a modern people choosing how to interact with other people in the modern world.
(Although I didn't mention them directly, the Sentinelese definitely were one of the things I had lingering in my mind when I posted my OP, so I'm glad you said something about them)
I didn't know that, but that is interesting
this was clarifying, thanks
I'm probably just ignorant, but aren't these kind of the same thing?
The upshot of both seems to be "modernity is bad, the right way for humans to live is in some vastly simpler system characterized by either sustenance farming, shepherding, and/or hunting & gathering".
An abortion is when the doctor yanks the 36-week fetus out by its umbilical cord and then whips it against the table a bunch of times to kill it
I have seen some leftists stand by this statement as entirely true, and I have also seen some leftists dismiss this idea as cope on the part of liberal Zionists who dislike Netanyahu/Likud (and who would like to delegitimize both Likud and Hamas together).
The following are some relevant articles that support this idea:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/
What is clear is that Israel has allowed Qatar to fund Hamas on numerous occasions without much interference. However, whether Israel has ever actually funded Hamas specifically with Israeli money is not as well-established (although many of the people who support the general “Israel propped up Hamas” idea definitely imply that this has happened). So as a corollary question, how important of a difference is this?
I currently live with my parents. If I moved to a part of the country with lower cost of living (which I could feasibly do since I have a remote job) I could definitely afford to rent an apartment or even buy a condo by myself, but I know from previous experience that I don’t enjoy living alone and would probably get depressed.
The orca attacks are back
I'm not sure I get what you're objecting to. Do you disagree with the assertion that Palestinians are not a monolith? Do you think it's more accurate to say they are a monolith?
(here's the article being referred to: https://jacobin.com/2023/10/solidarity-palestine-israeli-occupation-gaza-human-rights/)
Civil Rights Corps is way better
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2017860
> Just to clarify, I don't believe any of the following arguments and I'm fairly sure they're all bullshit, but I'd like to bolster my understanding of how to refute them the next time I see them. > > These are all paraphrased or "steelmanned" (as opposed to strawmanned) versions of arguments I've encountered elsewhere on the internet. > > 1. Israel does not unilaterally blockade the Gaza strip all by themselves; Egypt also has a border with Gaza and also participates in the blockade, and yet pro-Palestinians never seem to allocate any of the blame to Egypt, they always put it entirely on Israel. This is unfair and possibly antisemitic. > 2. In 1948, the Zionists allowed Arabs who didn't fight against them to stay in their homes and become citizens of Israel. This population of Arabs became known as the "48-Arabs", and they and their descendants are still citizens of Israel today. The fact that the Zionists accepted these people into their new state proves that the Zionists were not aiming to ethnically cleanse all Arabs and that Israel is not a racist state, or at least not a foundationally racist one. If the Arab Palestinian militants of 1948 had just done what the 48-Arabs had done instead of starting a war, they and their descendants would also be full citizens of Israel today. > 3. Western pro-Palestinian advocates make a critical error when they assume that Palestinians are primarily concerned with "civil rights". The main thing that motivates Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza (as opposed to Arab Muslim citizens of Green Line ‘48 Israel) is not their lack of "civil rights" (which are a largely Western notion, after all), it's that they resent Israel's existence as a non-Muslim-dominated society in what they see as "Muslim lands". They do not desire a secular democratic state with equal civil rights for all, they desire a Muslim controlled, sharia law state in which they can dominate Jews as a persecuted minority of second class citizens (dhimmi, infidels) or just drive Jews out entirely at their whim. Maybe in 1948 the Arab population of Palestine would have been satisfied with a secular, democratic state, but unfortunately extremist Islam has become a much more prevalent ideology since then and has changed the political equation. > 4. During the period of the British Mandate of Palestine (roughly 1910s to 1940s), Jewish immigrants improved the living standards of the region and initiated a lot of new economic activity. As a result, many Arab Muslims from neighboring regions like Egypt, Syria, and Jordan immigrated to the Mandate of Palestine because they were attracted by the new economic opportunities, and today's Palestinians in Gaza & the West Bank are largely descended from these Mandate-era Arab immigrants. Given that their ancestors came to Palestine at about the same time that Zionist Jews did (and in some cases later), their claims of having a superior right to the land of Palestine over Israeli Jews don't make sense. (example of this argument can be found here and here) > 5. Often pro-Palestinian advocates say that "Western countries should have accepted Jewish refugees in the 20th century instead of pressuring them to go to Palestine." This is true on a surface level, indeed a lot of things would have gone better if powerful Western countries had done that. But alas, they didn't, and that wasn't something that the Jews of the time had control over either way. Therefore the Jews who settled in Palestine at that time can't really be blamed for what they did, they were just looking out for themselves in the absence of any benevolent world power who would take them in. > 6. Pro-Palestinians misunderstand the Haavara agreement and overstate its importance. The fact that the Haavara agreement occurred does not prove that Zionists supported Nazism, or vice versa. If the Haavara agreement "proves" anything, it is simply that for a few years the Zionists had just enough political leverage with the Nazis & British to help out some fraction of German Jews as their situation in Germany was becoming more precarious, and the Zionists took the opportunity to do this while they could. This does not at all prove that the Zionists "supported the Holocaust/allowed it to happen" or anything like that, and the fact that some pro-Palestinians interpret it that way is really rather disappointing.
Police have said they are investigating the defacing of an Amy Winehouse statue in north London after a Star of David necklace was covered with a Palestine flag.
I worked at a giant News Media conglomerate in 2014-16. I can say with absolute certainty that the Bernie ratfucking was an actual conspiracy from things I heard from producers and on air reporters off camera. They also very much enjoyed Trump for the ratings.
You should write something long-form about this. I’d be interested in it.
One memory that sticks out to me is, I was reading some comment thread about like unemployment or something, and somebody wrote a comment that was something like the following:
"Republicans dream of a country where everyone is their own small business owner, but that's literally impossible to achieve because then there wouldn't be any workers. Capitalism needs workers."
Suddenly a lot of things about the economy started to make more sense. I became a socialist not long after that.
I think it was an r/politics thread, strangely enough
Eh. I don’t really like this one.
- Although Israel does have a lot of right-wing immigrants who moved there for noxious settler aspirations, it’s still the case that most of Israel’s current population (70-80%) were born in (the land currently controlled by) Israel. It’s not accurate to portray it as entirely first-gen immigrants/settlers, because that’s not the case anymore.
- I think it’s worth noting that some of those mentioned countries conspicuously stand out as places that have been historically awful towards Jews. Are we really going to be dismissive of Moroccan Jews or Romanian Jews who moved to Israel in the 1940s and 50s? Because it looks to me like they had pretty good reason.
markets, “””””property rights”””””, and ease of registering a business
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
I’m open to the possibility that there’s still something being kept secret here, but the fact that internet Nazis like to bring this up in their redpill memes so frequently is disconcerting.
If you know any books or blogs/websites that cover this, please recommend them.
I'm asking so that I have ammo against Zionists when they say things like "Palestine never existed" and "Palestinian identity/culture didn't exist until after Israel was founded".
I've tried doing some basic internet searches for things like "Palestinian art", "Palestinian art history", and "Ottoman Palestine artwork" but unfortunately the results are largely focused on Palestinian art from 1948 to present. Some of the results go back a bit further to like 1850, but I'd be interested to see some examples of Palestinian cultural production from the 1500s, 1600s & 1700s. Can anyone help me out?
Surely there’s a fallacy for this type of behavior.
Whataboutism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world
In 1948 and the years following, many countries in MENA became significantly more hostile to their Jewish minority populations. Most of the time this occurred in the form of pogroms and riots in Jewish neighborhoods, rather than official government action, although there were some instances of that too. As far as I can tell the worst cases of this were in Morocco, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
Between 1948 and 1978, about 650,000 Jews moved from Muslim-majority countries to Israel, and although not all of them were driven out by antisemitic violence, certainly some of them were. The debate over the relative importance of "pull factors" vs "push factors" is ongoing.
Zionists like to bring this up as a gotcha and ask things like "why doesn't the pro-Palestine side ever talk about giving Jews who were pushed out of Morocco a right to return there? Expulsion didn't just happen to Palestinians"
As far as I can tell we haven't really come up with a good answer to this, so maybe we should formulate one.
Ehh. I don't think private equity is the main issue. I think that private equity firms would prefer to fund the construction of new housing if they could, but they can't, because of zoning laws. So they opt for the next best thing which is buying up existing housing stock and renting it.
The crux of the problem is zoning laws, single-family zoning in particular. We either need to allow a bunch of undeveloped land to be developed, or we need to allow already-developed land to be converted into more dense forms of housing. I think the latter option is preferable.
I'm trying to work out how I feel about this.
Every so often, republicans in the US will accuse democrats & leftists of being "pro-abortion up to the point of birth". Sometimes they go even further and make stuff up about "post-birth abortions" (I think Trump said something about that at one point).
I always hate it when they say stuff like that because it just feels so mendacious... but honestly, I have trouble refuting it because it does seem like a fair amount of liberals & leftists are opposed to any gestational limit. (Look at the comments in this Reddit thread to get an idea of what I mean). Their reasoning seems to be that even though a qualified restriction on late-in-the-pregnancy abortions might seem like an appropriate rule to have, it's impossible to write such a law perfectly so that it would still allow abortions to be performed in every appropriate case. There would always end up being a few cases where a woman who really ought to be allowed to get an abortion would be encumbered from getting one.
I understand that argument, but... idk, I guess I just can't shake the feeling that such a law can still be implemented in a good way, and should be. The UK, the Netherlands, and Pennsylvania all have gestational limits on abortion of 24 weeks, with cases of fetal impairment, risk to the life/health of the mother, and pregnancies that resulted from r*pe excluded from the limit (as is common). I do not see the UK, the Netherlands, and Pennsylvania as particularly oppressive places for reproductive rights. As far as I know, the medical consensus is that 24 weeks is both the point when fetuses become developed enough to survive outside the womb, and also when they become developed enough to experience pain, so I do think there's some moral consideration to be given to that.
So what's the right answer here?
asking for a friend
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the current US healthcare system, it’s horrible and riddled with perverse incentives, and should be mostly (if not entirely) nationalized. I’m just not sure how to justify the idea that healthcare is a “right”.
I know that sometimes people on the left draw a comparison to the right to a public defender. I’m not sure that argument really holds up though, because you only have the right to a public defender under the specific circumstance of being prosecuted by the government for a crime. The logic there is “if the government is going to significantly interfere with your life by arresting you and trying you for a crime, then it at least has to allow you to get legal defense from a qualified attorney, even if you need the government to pay for it.” There’s not, like, a right to a publicly paid lawyer for any and all purposes.
Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users like hegawid.
