Yawn, there is some variant of this story after every os release.
The articles specific gripes with macOS are Mail, Messages, and System settings. Fixing those does not require a ‘no new features’ (which was always BS) major release.
Hamas has been considerably weakened. Their arsenal of rockets and weapons is depleted. At the beginning of the war thousands of rockets were being shot into Israel and now there are very few and the ones that are are quite crude.
Hezbollah entered the war immediately and said the only way they would exit is if Hamas exists. Israel retaliated, killed their leader, decimated their forces, and negotiated a ceasefire that got Hezbollah to back off on their original terms. Lebanon just elected an anti-Hezbollah President.
During all of this, Assad was deposed. Israel's main adversary is Iran. They are the ones who fund and supply Hamas and Hezbollah, and were the key ally of Assad. They attacked Israel multiple times during the war and Israel responded in kind, the assesments seem to be that Israel's responses were quite strong.
So prior to October 7, Iran had strong proxies and allies all over the region. They are now either in shambles or deposed.
The goal of the war for Israel is to prevent another October 7th style attack from occuring. I'd say they have made significant steps towards accomplishing that from a military perspective.
Israel has likely also created multiple generations of anger and hate against themselves. They may have reduced the likelihood of another Oct 7 in the near term, but 50 years is not something I would count on
Probably the most efficient way of creating multiple generations of anger and hate is letting a radical terrorist movement control 2 million people, which can completely mold the education curriculum and free to draft anyone to their quasi-army
So whatever it has done, it cannot possibly be worse than pre-war
> letting a radical terrorist movement control 2 million people, which can completely mold the education curriculum and free to draft anyone to their quasi-army
“Terrorist” groups Irgun, Haganah, Lehi all became part of Israeli government and army post 1948. Israel has mandatory military service for its citizens.
Haganah was a paramilitary organization formed after a few rather violent massacres of the Jewish population in the 1920s, climaxing with the Hebron massacre in 1929 which included horrors similar to October 7, hence why it's name in Hebrew is "Defense". Except for a short stint of a few months of something in between guerilla warfare and terror attacks against the British, it was mainly a military organization foremost, tasked with defense of the Jewish population from Palestinian attacks until the 1948 war
Irgun and Lehi were both offshoots which can be categorized as terror organizations, however they were very small, with a few hundred members and never reached the size or level of support of any Palestinian organization
While the Haganah formed most of the IDF leadership, the new country civilian leadership was based on the Jewish Agency which predated the Haganah and had completely civilian leadership.
There are many other differences between Hamas and these organizations, but in general this is an invalid comparison
I believe the comparison is valid - I put "terrorist" in quotes for a reason.
All three groups at times participated in violent activities targeting the British, Arabs, and even at times other Jews.
Haganah was proscribed by the British mandate and was an unlawful, underground militia. Lehi had 100s of members but Irgun had 4000-8000.
You yourself admit that Lehi and Irgun could be categorized as "terrorist" and Haganah engaged in what you describe as "something in between guerilla warfare and terror attacks".
Hamas would also not describe themselves as "terrorist", they also describe themselves as a "resistance" movement.
Haganah both planned and executed the "Plan Dalet", which killed and forcibly expelled the vast majority of non-Jews from their lands - they actually did what people accuse Hamas of wanting to do.
The relations with the British was more complex than you think, including many years of cooperation, including British training of Haganah forces in the SNS and fighting together during the arab revolt. As common in this conflict I think your original comment was superficial in its resorting to labels rather than content.
Regarding Plan Dalet, saying that most of the non-jews were killed or forcibly expelled is simply not true, not chronologically or factually.
Fact is that most of the Palestinians in 1948 fled on their own accords, while forced expulsions happened they were rare and were done for military reasons, mostly preparing for the imminent attack of five regular armies, as happened by the other side as well (e.g. kfar etzion)
While Israel proper has a sizable Palestinian population that is larger than the population of the Gaza strip
As i alluded to in my comment, I put “terrorist” in quotes precisely because I recognize the nuance. I agree that it is not productive to resort to lazily labeling militant groups as “terrorist”. That was the entire point of my original comment, which seems to be lost on you.
> Regarding Plan Dalet, saying that most of the non-jews were killed or forcibly expelled is simply not true, not chronologically or factually.
Right wing Israeli historian Benny Morris writes:
> the bulk of the Palestinian refugees—some 250,000 to 300,000- went into exile during those weeks between early April and mid-June 1948, with the major precipitant being Jewish (Haganah/1ZL/IDF) military attacks or the fear of such attacks
> In conformity with Tochnit Dalet (Plan D), the Haganah master plan, formulated in early March 1948, for securing the Jewish state areas in preparation for the expected declaration of statehood and the prospective Arab invasion, the Haganah cleared various areas completely of Arab villages
In his paper “A new historiography”.
His estimates of expulsions are on the low end compared to other Israeli New Historians. And of course much lower than Arab historians are estimates as well, but I have a sinking feeling that citing Arab historians wouldn’t be productive in this particular exchange.
Benny Morris is not a right wing historian, but was actually very much in the deep Israeli left when this was written, very far from the Israeli history consensus. You'd might want to read about the New Historians for some perspective on that.
Reading his seminal work 1948 puts your quote as somewhat out of context:
Plan D has given rise over the decades to a minor historiographic controversy, with Palestinian and pro-Palestinian historians charging that it was
the Haganah’s master plan for the expulsion of the country’s Arabs. But a
cursory examination of the actual text leads to a different conclusion
If you are interested in Benny Morris, you will probably be interested to read in the same book about the Palestinian and Arab armies expulsion of Jewish settlements as early as 1929, and in multiple places in the war (Etzion Bloc, Yad Mordechai, Nitzanim, Masada, etc), where they cleansed the Jewish population from the future Arab state. This followed multiple declarations of intent by the Grand Mufti and other Arab leaders of cleansing the Jewish state.
Furthermore, you might be interested in the forced expulsion of around 700,000 Jews from Arab countries following the war, a similar number to the number of Palestinian refugees created by the war. These were settled in Israel, while the Palestinians were kept in city-sized refugee camps as non-civilians in Arab states for 70+ years.
Generally, based on some information you have omitted or seemed to misunderstand, I have the feeling that most of your knowledge on this subject is based on reading post-digested sources in Wikipedia, which is nowadays an extremely biased source on this subject, and very much deviates from even basic facts.
I see that one show cited a lot - What in particular about that television show was problematic and “worse” than what Gazans have endured over the past 15 months?
Also, how does that compare with Israeli schoolchildren singing about destroying Gaza?
> Nahoul lectures to the audience that "we will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of the criminal Jews." [...] Later, Izz Al-Din from Ramallah calls in and Nahoul suggests that "we will go on Jihad when we grow up
> Nassur and Saraa have a disagreement about what the "expulsion" of the "Jews or Zionists" means. Saraa adopts the argument that they should be "chased away" and that "we don't want to do anything to them, just expel them from our land." Nassur, on the other hand, endorses the view that they should be "erased" and that "we want to slaughter them so they will be expelled from our land." Saraa eventually concedes, and the two compromised that "we will expel them from our land using all means, and if they don't want to go peacefully, by words or talking, we'll have to do it by slaughter."
You know that thousands of children have been killed now right? I'm counting the Israeli children along with the Gazan children. There is no basis for this kind of comparison now that the leadership of both countries have revealed themselves as murderers. Let's have a sense of proportion here...
Having a puppet on television say that someone died in a missile attack is not as bad as having an actual friend or relative die in a missile attack. This is what I mean by a, "sense of proportion."
I don't think you understand the original argument of this thread or my questions. Would Gazans be more moved to hate Israeli's by the problematic show you quoted, or the fact that 90% of them have been made homeless and many have lost their friends and family?
And what of similar problematic propaganda on the Israeli side?
Somehow it’s considered monstrous to brutally slaughter 1000 Israelis by hand, but OK to murder and starve an order of magnitude (or two) more Gazan civilians using industrialized warfare.
I guess if you’re a drone operator with no strong feelings about the murder you’re committing, then it’s totally ethical to do whatever you want as long as some Hamas get hit. What a fantastic cheat code!
Yep, and even then, the IDF likely killed many of those killed on Oct 7th. We'll never know exactly how many, since Israel wouldn't allow an investigation.
Intentions matter. Bombing a hospital with terrorists operating out of it is a very different act to deliberately and directly targeting civilians for murder and hostage taking.
True... but where were the terrorists? Where was the evidence? Apart from the ludicrous 3D animation that was created before Israel destroyed the first hospital, I haven't seen so much as a shred of credible evidence. Oh, apart from the Arabic calendar that was totally a list of hostages.
Nobody seriously believes that every single hospital in Gaza was a hotbed of terrorist activity, especially without evidence. What we have seen, is the IDF illegally setup bases of operation in Gazan hospitals though!
>something that would cause civilians on oct 7 join en masse a fest of rape
there is 0 evidence for "mass rape" on oct7, this has been debunked.
Every one of your accusations is a confession: "Israel: UN experts appalled by reported human rights violations against Palestinian women and girls."
“We are particularly distressed by reports that Palestinian women and girls in detention have also been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault, such as being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers. At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped while others were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence,” the experts said. They also noted that photos of female detainees in degrading circumstances were also reportedly taken by the Israeli army and uploaded online."
Right but the truth is that they were just standing in the wrong building or couldn't go without food for long enough, they're going to find out something that simple no matter who runs the schools.
I'm not trying to say if it is better or worse. Perhaps a better phrasing is "Israel has solidified another 2 generations of hatred by how they prosecuted the war." Leveling a country, killing and maiming as many as they did, the indiscriminate nature and war crimes, these things worked against their stated goals in the long-term
This is the narrative that the extremists want to push, but it’s hardly the truth. Hamas was not some grassroots movement of frustrated Palestinians. It was an Iranian proxy force masterminded, funded, supplied, trained, and instructed by Iran.
There are certainly many angry Palestinians before and after but this is foreign meddling through and through. Hamas would not exist in this form and have done the things that it did otherwise.
They already hated Israel. So much that they attacked them and started this war in the first place. I doubt Israel is any worse off in terms of being hated than they were before the war.
Hamas is not a rational actor. Their stated goal is to destroy Israel and kill every Jew. That's it. There is no scenario in which they are going to stop hating Israel. They don't care if every Palestinian also gets killed, if they get to destroy Israel it's worth it to them.
There are multiple generations of hate in the West Bank as well. Israel isn't threaten by them as much as they have much more difficulty accumulating weapons.
Are the Palestinians in the West Bank supposed to love their armed illegal settler neighbors?
It feels like almost ever day that I see a video of a Palestinian's home in the West Bank being demolished or a Palestinian family being harassed by armed settlers
I think you might have misinterpreted the comment above you. I took it to mean that there are a set of circumstances unique to Gaza that cause greater conflict between it and Israel than between the West Bank and Israel, which is not sufficiently explained by generational trauma alone.
> Israel has likely also created multiple generations of anger and hate against themselves
Israel would have created multiple generations of emboldened anger and hate against themselves if they failed to respond to the massacre and mass kidnapping.
I don't understand how is this different to all wars? back then when the Nazis started the war and we had to declare war against them. Or when we nuked 2 cities of Japan, were we also afraid that we will create multiple generations of anger and hate? how is this different?
I'm not comparing Israel or Palestine to Nazi, it's just a bitter fact that war always create anger and hate. Something had to be done though?
If you take the analogy further, Germany also completely surrendered after WWII and came up with a new, democratic government. In the meantime, 12-16 millions of Germans were driven out of their homes in East Prussia never to return. It wasn't until 1990 that the (now reunited) Germany finally renounced all claims to their lost territory.
OK, but it's not exactly like the population there had any choice, or even any way before the war to improve their circumstances of living.
Also, reminder that Smotrich, Ben Gvir and friends were already hard at work taking over the west bank before Hamas did Oct. 7.
Israel could have sidelined Hamas, boosted the PA and gave Gazans an actual alternative to the fundamentalist vision of Hamas. They did the exact opposite.
'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)
'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.'
(Article 11)
'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the
Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.' (Article 13)
- - -
Hamas are genocidal religious supremacists. Just because they haven’t succeeded in destroying the Jewish state doesn’t mean that they’re the peaceful victims in all of this. If they had access to weapons of mass destruction they would use them without a second thought. Read the Charter
That happens with worst possible out of context translations.
There's a lot written about that charter, the original and translations, and various reasons why Hamas feel that Palestinians must defend themselves from Israelis.
As I understand it that feeling is mirrored, both sides having more in common than they might admit.
The great thing about a charter is that it’s there in black and white, a first-class source of information on the actual intent, as opposed to later subjective analysis of things like “context”
If a group tells you who they are in official written terms, believe them.
Al Jazeera is far from unbiased. _Some_ of these so-called "Journalists" were terrorists and/or Hamas propagandists. That fact seems to escape the western press. All reporting I have seen puts the same level of credibility between Israeli and Hamas statements - one being from an elected democracy with rules based order and the other a literal genocidal terrorist organisation. I don't see the retractions given the same exposure as the claims when it turns out Hamas have lied. I don't see the atrocities Hamas commits get air time.
This is just my experience over the last 16 months. I thought it was absolutely crazy that within hours of Oct 7th I was seeing in the news how Israel should be blamed or are responsible. This weird rewriting of history in real time doesn't seem to have been let up since. It feels like I am taking crazy pills with the amount of vehement anti-Israeli diatribe that comes out of what I thought were sensible people or unbiased institutions.
People are pointing to a very long history of misbehavior on the part of Israel when they say that. Something along the lines of “hamas and their attack was to be expected given the circumstances israel, the party with all the decisionmaking power, deliberately cultivated over decades.”
And yet there is the speech by Jordan's foreign minister who makes clear that the Arab states are interested in relations with Israel - as a normal state and as part of a two-state solution with mutual sovereignty, but not with a state that behaves as if they had some divine right to dominate the entire region.
Good question. I think there was a quote by some Saudi official that the government doesn't care a lot about the issue and would prefer the normalization agreement to go through, but the population does - and sidelining the Palestinian issue would risk domestic stability.
I could imagine this is the sentiment in many of the countries there.
You've got your history mixed up. It was the Christians who persecuted Jews throughout history, culminating in the holocaust by, guess who, Christians. Jews thrived under Muslim rule during the middle ages.
That's ancient history. The reality today is widespread anti-Semitism among Muslims and it's backed by Mohammed. Up till the holocaust, basically everyone hated the Jews. After that, Christians changed their mind and Muslims doubled down. The Palestinians collaborated with Hitler because he promised to help them get rid of their Jews too.
The right way to fight an independence movement is to either do so from within/in a more targeted fashion, or barring that, meet their demands in some shape or form. Escalating the violence to the point where you’re destroying and displacing a people might settle things down in the short term, but the movement will not die, and will more than likely grow.
The difference being that the new manpower has zero experience, is mostly kids and has no leadership. They reverted from a terrorist army, to an unorganized guerilla
Isis was never a legitimate independence movement. It was an expansionist terrorist group built on - quite literally - terror and anarchy. It worked for a while because the conditions were suitable in Syria and Iraq.
A true anti-colonial, independence movement does not die that easily. Across history, freedom & returning to one’s land are the greatest motivators of all.
>Isis was never a legitimate independence movement. It was an expansionist terrorist group built on - quite literally - terror and anarchy. It worked for a while because the conditions were suitable in Syria and Iraq.
Yep. HAMAS is the same.
>A true anti-colonial, independence movement does not die that easily. Across history, freedom & returning to one’s land are the greatest motivators of all.
Yes. That though has no relation to the subject at hands - the terrorist organization HAMAS.
I'm sure that when Palestinians produce something looking like a reasonable government/independence movement instead of a terrorist organization their path to full sovereignty would move forward (like it was during Clinton times until they broke it with the second intifada).
Not replying to you specifically; just responding for more open minded readers.
Rabin was assassinated for Oslo. The process stopped. The US spoke of a two state solution, while also playing along with settlement expansion. The West Bank is now apartheid swiss cheese. And Gaza is regularly bombed. A peaceful march in Gaza ended in bloodshed and intentional aiming at appendages by IOF snipers.
When all avenues towards a lasting solution are blocked, and peaceful protest is suppressed with violence, what would you expect would happen exactly?
Not only is Hamas weakened, Hamas' and Iran's supporter (China, Russia) has been severely weakened compared to the start of the conflict. Russia is in a stalemate in the Ukraine invasion, and has lost significant economic and military resources since. Russia also lost significant influence in Middle East, with the Assad regime fall. China is a severe economic decline. Also, China distanced itself from Iran, most likely due to wanting to not get sanctioned by US and Europe. https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/china-is-recalculating-its-m....
And we've yet to see whether this is a good thing.
Gaddafi was seen as one of the most oppressive figures in the world during his lifetime. A few countries made it their goal to take him down and liberate the people of Libya.
Gaddafi was killed, Libya was free, and the media celebrated. Just like with Syria, media coverage was down to basically zero about a month after that happened and everyone was left thinking it was a job well done. Turns out Libya has been worse than it ever was under Gaddafi. Having an oppressive albeit relatively secular leader who maintained a stable hold on the country turned out to be better than an oppressive non-secular mess.
Good points there. Still not sure how much the ouster of Assad was connected with the war (though no doubt that the weakening of Hezbollah must have contributed a lot to it) but it definitely changed the playing field.
> Israel's main adversary is Iran. They are the ones who fund and supply Hamas
Well, Israel started and has been funding Hamas (I'm assuming, but who knows, that it stopped with this war) since the PLO/Arafat days to the tune of (at times tens of) millions a month.
That's not actually true. First Israel didn't fund them, they allowed others to fund them, second the Hamas back then was not the terrorists of today, they changed.
> According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The monsters are still there and already planning their next attempt in genocide. While the hostages coming back is a welcome news, none of war objectives were achieved. All the sacrifices were pointless if Israel exits Gaza and leaves Hamas in control (weakened is but still in control).
Netanyahu again showed that he is a coward and easily pressured and has a pathological fear of a conflict.
With thousands of monsters being released back into Gaza I fear the next 7 October will be worse.
None of this started on Oct 7th, the inciting incident was the founding of Israel itself on top of an existing state with an existing population who were violently expelled to make way. Everything else is just ongoing fallout from that.
To be fair, there was no existing state, except the Ottoman empire which was defeated and dismantled in WWI. There was however an existing population who never got any say in what happened with their own land.
Because the Ottoman empire was already long gone at the moment of the founding of Israel (and also Palestine had been a relatively small region within that empire, not a state on its own).
GP made it sound as if there had been an existing state in 1948.
(Not disputing however that the zionist project of establishing a state there and the entire conflict go back far longer than 1948, to a time where the Ottomans definitly were still there)
The state didn't magically disappear in 1920, it just went from being administered by the Ottoman sultan to being administered by the British (in Palestine, and other people in other places).
You could say that the Sanjak of Jerusalem, Sanjak of Balqa, and Sanjak of Acre together pretty much make up the bulk of the area that the British called Mandatory Palestine. But its borders don't match Mandatory Palestine borders, and there was no special association of those three Sanjaks anyway.
Before the 20th century, the Arabs did not use the term Palestine, and had no concept of the areas of modern Palestine as being united in any modern sense. The closest thing that the Arabs at the time would group them would be as Greater Syria or AlShaam (or Ashshaam the way the locals say it), which includes Syria, Lebanon, and most of Jordan - but does not include the Negev desert. The earliest use of the word Palestine by an Arab was 1911, in the founding of the Palestine Post newspaper. At the time the word was a geographic area. The earliest mention of a Palestinian as a demonym for a person (as opposed to a geographic area) was 1964.
> The thing coming closest to a successor state would be modern-day Turkey, I believe.
Turkey rescinded all territorial claims to the area in 1921 or 1922 (I don't remember which).
That's quite the problem, because the Brits had no territorial claim to the area, they only administrated the Mandate. The Jordanians occupied the West Bank from 1948-1967, but it was considered an occupation (like Israel has now) by all states in the world except for Iraq (the Iraqi king was the brother of the Jordanian king). In any case, they rescinded territorial claims to the area in 1991 or 1994 (I don't remember which).
So Israel is currently occupying an area that no state has claim to. And to be fair, Israel has been trying to get rid of it more or less since 1994. Every time they get close some incident or another prevents that - and now the current leadership seems disinterested in getting rid of it.
First of all, 1947 was a civil war between Muslim Arabs and Jews, when the British left and caused a vacuum of power. Much like a far larger civil war in India in 1947 when the Britishers left and caused a vacuum of power between Muslims and Hindus. 1 million people died in that one, but both sides established states and people moved on. Not so in Palestine. Arab League resolution 1547 and Casablanca Protocol made sure their descendants would be stateless for any amount of generations. An unprecedented thing, also UNRWA was established only for this artificially stateless group (every other refugee group in the world goes through UNHCR), UNRWA bureaucracy has labeled all their descendants as “refugees” forever, while in Western countries both Palestinians and Jews (and everyone else) have long moved on and got citizenship.
Second of all, the ones in charge of the place were the British. They defeated the Ottomans (who in turn had been EXTREMELY brutal to Christians including Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians) for over 100 years. Just google the massacres of Chios, Sayfo, Hamidian massacres and the Armenian genocide. To their credit, Palestinian Arabs did not participate in such things, and they were loyal Ottoman subjects. In fact, British had to go and recruit Arabs from Arabia (the Hashemite brothers including King Faisal of Syria and King Abdullah of Jordan) and promise them vast territories (see Lawrence of Arabia) to help them overthrow the Ottomans. The very thing that Ottomans massacred Armenians for (suspecting them of siding with Russia against their empire) the Hashemites ACTUALLY DID.
The Mandate of Palestine was actually unanimously given to Britain by the League of Nations which was set up by Britain and France and a few other winners of WW1 specifically to avoid wars like WW1 and to give each nation self determination peacefully (they forgot Kurds). The Russians approved of this — Russia had become embroiled in their own civil war, with Bolsheviks like Trotsky supporting the Mandate system because it meant each nation would have self determination. (It was Bolsheviks like Trotsky that exposed the enbarassing Sykes-Pikot agreement to divide Ottoman territory years earlier!)
There were other mandates in Syria, Iraq (Faisal) and Jordan (Abdullah) etc. where Jews were NOT allowed to settle. Funny how almost no one has a problem with THOSE, even though they were literal KINGDOMS, set up by the British under the same Mandate system, with ONE GUY in charge, appointed by British in exchange for helping them win WW1. The Hashemites were from Arabia! But when British did the same with Chaim Weitzmann for helping them win the war vs Germany, and established a national home for Jews in Palestine — ooh no. Jews? What right do THOSE GUYS have to be there?
Third of all, the attacks on Jews were happening before any founding of a state. They started happening in 1920 with the Nebi Musa riots, and continued through the 20s and 30s.
The main factor was that the most antisemitic and intolerant people were promoted to be leaders of Palestinian Arabs. I am talking about Al Husseini, and Al Qassam (for whom Hamas named the Qassam rockets and brigades).
Al Husseini whipped many Palestinian Arabs into a xenophobic frenzy much like for example right wing nationalists in Britain have done against immigrants. But he went further and met Hitler, joined the Nazis and even led SS divisions. The guy truly had some genocidal hatred.
Samuel Herbert was the governor put in charge by the British, and he made such bad mistakes as bringing back extremists like Husseini (and Jabotinsky) which the British exiled for fomenting unrest. And he actually maneuvered the young Husseini into being Grant Mufti, when it should have gone to more seasoned Muftis like from the Nashashibi clan and even other Husseinis.
I should also point out that during this entire time, CIVILIAN LEADERS have been FRIENDLY to Jews. Faisal of Syria made an agreement eith Weitzmann to help Zionists. In 1947 Abdullah of Jordan even secretly met with Golda Meir and initially promised to stay out of the civil war in 1947, but had to get involved after Lydda/Ramle.
The mayor of Jaffa (also a Husseini) actually HELPED DEFEND the original Zionist settlement that became Tel Aviv. By the way which btw didnt take anyone’s land, it was built on empty sand dunes.
In fact, I CHALLENGE ANYONE HERE to name one instance — just one — of Jews stealing land prior to 1947 civil war. It’s just a meme that’s completely not true (not a single example).
On the contrary, Jews BOUGHT AND OVERPAID for all the land they had in Palestine, until that civil war. They eradicated Malaria (google Jacob Kliger), drained swamps, planted trees and worked WITH ARABS to make the land livable.
It’s true that many socialist Zionist kibbutzniks and hassidic Jews didnt hire Arabs and preferred to hire Jews so the peasants (fellaheen) were fired from working the land and had to work for Arabs instead. But under capitalism that is completely 100% fine. The same exact thing happened in 1930s depression, as automation like combines displaced farmhands and owners of farms fired tons of farmhands. Read “grapes of wrath” by Steinbeck and others at the time to see the kind of migration that took place from farms and the economic depression that ensued. And yet no one in the USA would justify pogromming the farm owners and tractor operators.
I have found that many anti-zionists if they go back in history start justifying pogroms on Jews much earlier than 1947, for things like “but they bought land and fired people” or “well maybe they would have attacked Al Aqsa”.
Finally, starting in the 1960s, the Soviets and KGB actually trained the Palestine Liberation Organization, and put Arafat in charge of it. They also trained other marxist-leninist militant organizations such as PFLP etc. Much like USA trained mujahideen (Arabic for “jihadists”) in Afghanistan and fomented a civil war leaving 2 million Afghan civilians dead!
The Palestine Liberation Organization and Arafat fought a civil war vs the king of Jordan in 1970 in which up to 25,000 Palestinians were killed in 11 days! (No antizionist talks about that.). Got expelled to Lebanon and kicked off a civil war there (years before Israel invaded Lebanon to help Christians). They also got HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIANS expelled from Kuwait because Arafat sided with Saddam. The PLO and Hamas have been the most destructive forces for Palestinian civilians across the entire region, and even Arafat himself admitted that “what Kuwait did to us was worse than the Nakba”.
Look, this is the true history and the main factor is that the ANGRY TERRORISTS with foreign funding (whether it was the generation of Islamist Al Qassam, the marxist PLO, or the Islamist Hamas or PIJ) dominated instead of CIVILIAN LEADERS.
Palestinian civilian leaders chose peace and annexation to Syria / Jordan every chance they got. People forget this. They were pragmatic and sane people, and regular Palestinians were better off under them than militants armed by KGB or now Iran who taught “struggle forever” to kids of plebs while they became billionaires living in mansions.
Ask any Palestinian on the street and they have NO IDEA about any of their leaders before “Abu Ammar” aka Arafat. So sad! In fact they even dont know about Al Husseini. Soviet Propaganda had done an amazing job. Most antizionists don’t realize the KGB roots of Palestine liberation movements nor that they are saying word for word the KGB propaganda from the 60s:
I don't think Israel should cease to exist, I think it should cease doubling down on the settler-colonial project it started out as. If you choose to equate the latter with destroying Israel then I'm afraid you're telling on yourself.
Show me another conflict in history where the good guys killed 10x as many people as the bad guys. (Not even starting with all the other instances of dehumanization)
>So the side that dies more has the moral high ground in your opinion?
No the side that has been ethnically cleansed and colonized for 75+ years and made refugees in their own land have the moral high-ground. Palestinians have every right to resist to the evil they have been subjected to for almost a century.
Statement by UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland on Attack by Israeli Settlers in Huwwara
“I condemn today’s attack by Israeli settlers against Palestinians and their property in the town of Huwara in occupied West Bank,” said UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Tor Wennesland, in a statement.
“I'm outraged by the continued incitement, provocations, and lack of accountability for these violent crimes,” he added, stressing that “Israel must ensure that the civilian population is protected, and perpetrators are held to account.”
This is an excellent example of how Israelis feel the UN attacks us.
The October 6th statement condemning the Israelis destroying property in Huwara comes a month after an Israeli father and son were murdered in Huwara, and hours after another gunman in Huwara fired at Israeli civilians. The UN said nothing about the two murders or the continued gunfire at civilians. But property damage is something that they find important enough to comment on?!?
And to be absolutely clear, the attack by Israeli settlers was condemned by almost every single Israeli citizen, group, and media. Whereas Hamas, the PA, and the Islamic Jihad praised the two murders, I remember that only because they didn't claim the murderer as one of their own (which they usually do).
And to clear up one last detail, the Israeli settler attack in Huwara did damage property and there is a disputed incident in which an Arab attacking the Israelis (who may or may not have been those attacking) was killed - it's not clear if by Israeli civilian attackers or the military. The property damage was mostly (but not only) a car wrecking yard that was burned. See the photographs of the damaged vehicles, note that they are stacked on top of each other:
That is an Arab media source, that I found by searching for Huwara in Arabic, because I don't want to bias this answer with a link to an Israeli source (I'm sure there's bias in here despite my attempts to present dry facts).
I would say 75+ years of Zionist terrorism[1][2][3], ethnic-cleansing, apartheid, being locked up in a concentration camp. I mean you could have looked those up yourself but something tells me you just didn't care to look it up.
It really depends what people have to lose. If they're left without families, place to live, purpose in life other than revenge... what exactly could be "even worse" at that point?
The framing here is pretty ridiculous. Israel definitely punches back much harder than Hamas, but comparing October 7th to a punch and Israel's response to running over babies with a bulldozer is absurd.
Hamas blatantly escalated the conflict by a large margin, there's no denying that. You can't cry over your adversary's response when you do something like that, I'm sorry. Next time keep your hands to yourself, or perhaps just continue throwing rockets at civilians: Israel seems to be willing to tolerate that.
By conservative estimates (see the 2024 Khatlib paper in the Lancet), roughly 7--9% of the population of Gaza will perish as a result of the actions of Israel on the strip. Many more will flee. According to UN, clearing the rubble in Gaza will take 15 years. That's just clearing the rubble, not rebuilding the damaged buildings, which is about 66% of the total.
There are some clear indications that the intention of the Israeli government is to destroy in whole, or in part, the Palestinian people, for example by killing members of the group, or inflicting upon it conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of the group.
There's a wealth of quotes from high ranking officials, going all the way up to the Knesset, stating almost exactly that. One quote I think of from time to time is "Erase them, their families, mothers and children." given in a motivational speech directed at the IDF.
Given that this is their intention (and I have every reason to believe it is), I'd say that this has been a pretty successful affair for Israel. Sure, Jews worldwide (including Israel) are much less safe now than they were two years ago, but the Israeli government does not give me the impression that this is at all their goal.
This makes no sense to me. If 8% (171,000 people) of Gaza were to perish, that would leave Gaza with the population it had in 2020. The ceasefire reportedly will have Israel pulling out from Gaza fully and a massive influx of humanitarian aid is expected to enter Gaza. If the ceasefire goes through, the death rate will drop greatly and the population will begin to grow again.
As horrible as the destruction has been, this is nowhere close to eliminating the people of Gaza. If genocide was a goal of any of the Israeli leadership, they abjectly failed.
> If genocide was a goal of any of the Israeli leadership, they abjectly failed
This take is incredibly callous. Suppose 8% of everyone you gets killed. This is a shockingly brutal thing to happen to a population. Aside from that you're wrong on a factual level. The "in part" part of the '51 convention is there precisely so people don't say "there's still Jews left so technically the Holocaust wasn't a genocide". The holocaust was a genocide, and this is a genocide (yes, "is", they're still dropping bombs on a population half of which is under 18). There's a reason the relevant cases haven't been thrown out of the ICJ and ICC.
But genocidal people are callous! I'm not being callous towards the people living through this. You don't need to convince me it's horrible.
But put yourself in the shoes of a hypothetical evil genocidal person. Assume 8% of Gaza was killed (though this figure is wrong). Having Gaza at it's 2020 population is negligible to them. They were hoping to murder everyone and reclaim their holy land or something and instead (purely from a population standpoint) they're basically just back to the status quo after the truce. Even most Nazis would say they ultimately failed in their genocidal ambitions and they killed two thirds of the Jews in Europe and 90% in Poland.
Second, 8% of Gaza hasn't been killed. By the Gaza health ministry's estimate, about 2% have been killed. Your source arrived at 8% literally by just quadrupling the number without any basis in data from Gaza. This is out of line with all the estimates from Gaza.
> Aside from that you're wrong on a factual level. The "in part" part of the '51 convention is there precisely so...
I'm aware and I didn't say anything factually wrong. Killing just part of a people doesn't legally exempt it from being genocide. But killing part of a people also doesn't imply genocide. Every war has killed part of a people. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars each killed far more people than the Gaza war, but neither is considered genocide.
If Israel were acting like the Nazis, there wouldn't be any Palestinians left in Gaza. They'd all be carpet bombed, shot on sight, or sent to forced labor camps. There's a world of difference between the two.
That's not even remotely what anyone is saying. If you're denying there's a difference in quality between what the Nazis did and what Israel did, that's also rather appalling.
To qualify Israel's actions as a genocide, lawyers don't have to show that Israel killed every Palestinian in Gaza, but they will have to prove they intended to. The ICC is not going to rule this a genocide.
As should be obvious, the "in part" wording of "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic group" does not mean killing any part of a ethnic group can be genocide (e.g. killing 7 people of an ethnicity in an airstrike is not a genocide). The part must be an identifiable subgroup. For example, intent to kill all Palestinians in Gaza, rather than all Palestinians everywhere, would qualify as genocidal intent. There has to be intent to physical eradicate an identifiable group. Forcing people to leave is also not genocide (it's an ethnic cleansing). Other war crimes do not qualify as genocide.
Israel is definitely more secure, because of the on front confrontation with Iran and its proxies.
1. Hezbollah suffered heavy blows and lost significant political and military power in Lebanon. Didn’t retaliate nearly as heavy as feared.
2. For the first time Israel struck with its military directly in Iran and showed real abilities by destroying most of Iran’s air defenses.
3. As a result of the two points above and other reasons, there was significant shift of powers in Syria which led to Assad regime collapse (significant amount of supplies to Iran’s main proxy Hezbollah went through Syria), but the affect of the regime change in Syria is yet to be determined.
There is an argument to be made that Iran and Hezbollah have been degraded, which makes the entire region safer. I'm not going to claim this, as I'm no expert, but there is a an argument to be made.
For the Gazans, the next months and years will be more determinative. Will they get the support and aid they need to rebuild and keep terrorist organizations from running their country? (They should have their own country instead of being effectively an open air prison)
Gaza has been its own country / Palestinian State since 2006 and they have been recipients of foreign aid for many years, which is how they fund these attacks.
That (security) was never Hamas' intention; they were worried about being forgotten, after Israel and KSA were close to normalizing relations, and now they've managed to gunk up the gears of any peace process, at the cost of 40,000 Gazan lives. So... a victory for Hamas? They've never been interested in peace anyways.
Israeli's are (not that they think it was worth it), Gazan's are not. This war severely weakened Iran, Iran's proxies (Lebanon/Hezbollah, and Syria) and also interestingly Russia.
Gazan's now have a ruined country with exactly nothing to show for it.
Depending on how you interpret it, this war was actually a good thing for Lebanon (they have a government for the first time in years), and Syria who finally overthrew their sadistic monster.
[Reposting a comment from ChocolateGod that was flagged and made dead despite being a legitimate good faith question]
> Syria who finally overthrew their sadistic monster.
Not saying Assad wasn't a sadistic monster, but do you really think an ISIS-related group running the state is going to be any better?
Can you concretely suggest what each side should have done at some point in time, to avoid being where we are now? I feel like you're making a rhetorical statement that's hard to map to specific actions.
Hamas was built over a long period by Iran, through Syria. Iran is much weaker than before, Syria is no longer a route to send supplies, and Hezbollah has been gutted.
Hamas was for the vast majority of its existence anti-Iran, and instead was supported by various Sunni groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Extrapolating convenient conclusions doesn't help anyone.
Concretely, Israel will not be caught offguard for an Oct 7-style attack for quite a while. So the macguffin (hundreds of hostages) will probably not come up again.
Oh please. Israelis could have voted in a different party/leader that would have taken another path. West Bank settlement expansions could have been halted and reversed (to a sensible degree of course). These are bread and butter suggestions that everyone who thinks honestly about this conflict sees clearly.
There are of course many more suggestions I didn't state. To pretend that there was just no way to avoid this is shameful.
Israel has a bunch of land that is politically and practically simpler to annex, than before. Israel is more secure by far, knowing that the US will continue to fund them even in the face of being convicted of humanitarian crimes.
Israeli leadership in 2006 gave up Gaza and forcefully evicted thousands of Jewish people in what was supposed to be an exchange for peace. That was supposed to be the end of the rockets and the attacks.
In case you are not aware, the exact opposite happened.
To be clear, we very much do want Gaza. We had homes there. and we have Jewish roots there going back long before the time of today’s Palestinian colonists.
Above all of that though, is that we want peace. And so if we have to be patient for a time when we can peacefully live in Gaza again, we will be patient.
In the meantime, the most important thing is the safe return of loved ones who were taken hostage on October 7th (and before!) and safety for those living in rocket’s range of Gaza.
Google's Ngram viewer isn't working for the term "Ben Gurion Canal" for some reason, but it would show approximately when renewed interest started getting traction since the proposal was declassified in 1996.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 2021 Evergreen fiasco was contributory to this renewed interest but this is pure speculation on my part.
This is not in dispute. None of what I initially posted is in dispute.
I would propose this "war" was relatively cheap in Israeli civilian lives lost for what was gained.
Demonstrably increasing the reach of Israel action without external repercussions, makes it a security win for Israel. None of the international community will put troops in front of Israel to benefit Palestine. That's worth something to know (converting an unknown to a known).
Part of me thinks a Peacekeeping Force (e.g. UN, EU etc) should go into Gaza to control it until a government is formed and stop Hamas from taking back control but I don't see the US not blocking it.
You mean distributing .mob files on xda-developers and needing to speak with carriers to distribute your app?
There’s a reason most developers moved in droves to Apple ecosystem for amazing APIs, software and hardware, abandoned Symbian/blackberry/etc and had no issues with the 30% fee since they instantly got market access to millions of consumers.
30% was never an issue to begin with. People just feel today that everyone should get access to a marketplace with billion users for free, often forgetting what it took to build this market in the first place.
The confiscation of 30% of all revenue earned online has always been an issue for any company and developer here on planet Earth.
There are countless useful apps and companies that will never serve people's needs because it is not financially feasible to run a business where your total revenue is confiscated to the tune of 30%.
It has always been an issue. It's just better than the status quo before the iPhone.
> People just feel today that everyone should get access to a marketplace with billion users for free, often forgetting what it took to build this market in the first place.
1. It's not for free. Users (and developers) pay for it when they buy the iPhone. iPhone revenue is 3x Apple's R&D expenses. That is, iPhone sales alone cover the R&D on every single of Apple's products: from iPhone and iOS to Macs and MacOS, AppleTV, HomePods, Vision Pro, all of Apple's software running on those devices etc.
2. This market was built in no small part by the actual developers you now so snidely dismiss. iPhone is nothing without the app ecosystem.
> Arm's argument is that the Nuvia license was canceled when it was taken over by Qualcomm.
How could the reporter possibly know one way or another, certainly it depends on the contents of that contract? Has anyone outside these three parties (Qualcomm, Arm, Nuvia) have seen the contract in question?
Yeah, equally there is a document that says what Qualcomm's lawyers want it to say. Sorting through both and providing a summary is part of "journalism".
And a quote from it, where Qualcomm states that it has the rights to use the IP from Nuvia because it has a ARM-license covering the same IP as Nuvia's ARM-license:
"3. Qualcomm has its own license agreements with ARM, under which Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the same intellectual property that NUVIA licensed under its own separate agreements with ARM. Therefore, even though ARM terminated the NUVIA licenses, Qualcomm owns independent licenses for the same ARM technology and information"
-
To this statement of ARM: "Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA"
The response of Qualcomm is this: "4. The notion that ARM has the right to control technology that is not ARM’s—and worse yet, to ask Defendants to destroy their innovation and inventions unless substantial monetary tribute is paid to ARM—offends customary norms of technology ownership, as well as NUVIA’s and Qualcomm’s rights under their agreements with ARM."
and this: "7. ARM’s position is a threat to the industry generally. Unless this Court rejects ARM’s arguments, ARM’s extreme position could be weaponized against all of its licensees, allowing ARM to claim ownership over all its licensees’ innovations."
-
So, as an amateur reading through the case, there is sufficient information to conclude that ARM has a contract that limits the use of Nuvia IP to Nuvia alone, and Qualcomm tries to argue that these terms are "offending" and "a threat to the industry".
--> So, there is obviously no disagreement that these crucial terms are in fact part of the ARM/Nuvia License contract.
It will take dozens of lawyers (at least three opinions between any two of them) many months and millions of dollars to figure it out, and you want the journalists to make a call?
The article sums up rough positions of both parties well enough.
I thought the issue with wind in the UK was that its supply is (Scotland) where the demand isn’t (the south). So we’d (a) have to build loads of pylons or expensive underground cables and (b) lose a lot in transmission.
You would have to build lots of transmission, but the losses aren't particularly significant for high voltage lines — it's only about 1000 km from the Shetland islands to Southampton, and HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km. Pricing seems to be a trade secret, but the suggested numbers on the Wikipedia page for the 8 GW cross-channel link were £110M for the converter stations and £1M/km for the undersea cable.
I know that a mere back-of-the-envelope calculation isn't worth much more than the used envelope it was written on (doubly so when it is based on guesstimates of the input numbers), but that would be only £1bn for 8 GW or £4bn for 32 GW (compared to actual average usage of 31.5 GW last year), which is the kind of thing that the British government shouldn't blink at but in practice actually faffs and fails at basically all the time.
(And the sector is theoretically privatised, so this would have to become a business investment, which in turns will have potential investors ask inconvenient questions like "What's the risk we have cheaper options in 10 years that make this power line redundant? And what about those fusion reactors I keep reading about in the Sunday Times? What if Scotland becomes independent and stops selling you the electricity?")
With proper high volatage direct current (HVDC) transmission, the transmission losses transporting electricity from Scotland to the south of England are not very relevant. It's like a couple of percent.
A bigger problem is just the UK's inability to complete infrastructure megaprojects on land, so the connectors would likely need to go in the sea and take a perhaps inefficient route.
There are a number of problems with wind in the UK. NIMBYism means it’s either in the north (nowhere near the consumer) or out in the sea which is both not terribly near the consumer and ferociously expensive to maintain. The UK Energy Catapult estimates that a single service vessel “truck roll” or “boat launch” (I guess) is something like £250K. Probably much more now as that figure is 10 years old. This means that it makes economic sense to wait until you have several broken wind turbines before sending out a service vessel. Couple this with the fact that they dont seem to have as long a lifetime as was promised (various reasons). Finally it is a meteorological reality that when it’s very cold in the UK and energy demands are high… it is also usually very still with no wind, and of course in the middle of winter when there are few hours of daylight helping us with solar generation.
> Finally it is a meteorological reality that when it’s very cold in the UK and energy demands are high… it is also usually very still with no wind, and of course in the middle of winter when there are few hours of daylight helping us with solar generation.
Your meteorological reality seems to not correlate with actual reality. In the UK the highest energy demand is actually correlated with high wind speeds [1]
>This reflects the variation in temperatures and wind speeds with season, with calmer, warmer conditions in summer and cooler, windier conditions in late autumn and early spring. However above the 75th percentile of demand, average wind power reduces, which occurs predominantly in winter and autumn. Understanding this downturn in wind power provides the motivation for this paper. Given our interest in high demand days, which predominantly occur in winter (figure 1, upper right), only winter days are considered.
>The tendency for lower wind power during higher winter demand is shown by the tilt of the density contours of the daily distribution (figure 1, lower left). It is also clearly seen when averaged across days of similar demand (figure 2, left). Average wind power reduces by a third between lower and higher winter demand, from approximately 60% to 40% of rated power.
Look at figure 2. Black is wind power, and the X axis is demand. Wind production capacity is down when demand is high.
Ok my statement was largely based on the abstract, I only skimmed the paper. The abstract refers to the uptick for very high demand percentiles (>90%), which I guess is still much smaller than the downward trend. I apologise I got this wrong.
The vast majority of the UK's cold winter weather comes from wind from the North-East, bringing in the much colder weather from Arctic/Siberian regions.
I frequently hear people bring up transmission losses as a concern, and genuinely curious where this idea comes from? Was this taught in schools or part of some disinformation campaign?
My understanding is that it is "simple" resistance heating of the transmission lines (P = I^2 R). Which is why high voltage lines are good ideas ( V = I R ) -- they lower the current.
Heating can be quite significant. I guess whether or not it’s economically significant depends on your cost of generation. There was a mega-outage which cut off Italy when overheated, sagging cables, struck the treetops in the middle of either another random outage or some scheduled maintenance. It’s been many years since I read the full report on the incident (which was excellent) but there was some great data in there about degrees of heating vs degree of sagging.
The articles specific gripes with macOS are Mail, Messages, and System settings. Fixing those does not require a ‘no new features’ (which was always BS) major release.