I think it's important to not throw babies out with bathwater here.
One can disagree with Mozilla and think advertising sucks, and use tools to block it or FOSS products that don't force it on us, while also seeing how e2ee encryption bans ("chat control") and age verification rules are a restriction of both the rights of service providers and the rights of users.
Another way to put it is, just because a regulation is a restriction of the rights of a service provider does not mean it isn't also a restriction of the rights of a user.
The former does not make the latter true, but in some cases both are true.
I'd also add that if we can't stop bad laws that restrict the rights of (and piss off) both service providers and users , we have no hope of stopping similarly bad laws that only restrict the rights of users.
(Service providers, even small ones if they take the time to speak with their member of Congress, can be very credible, sympathetic, and persuasive stakeholders. When we can fight on the same side--realizing that sometimes we will fight on opposite sides--it's better for user rights that we do so. One of the tragedies of the left and parts of the right in the Trump era is that they see any regulation that hurts Big Tech as a win, even if it also hurts user rights. User rights are safer if we can distinguish between regs that hurt Big Tech and users from regs that don't hurt users.)
My feelings of freedom in that era, as a teen in a small 90s US city, were what fueled me to co-found one of the organizations (Fight for the Future) cited in the article!
(No longer in the trenches, just on the board, deserve zero direct credit for any of this work--it's all them!)
The most important reason for privacy is that without it, social norms calcify.
If a norm is outdated, oppressive, or maladaptive in some way and needs to be changed, it becomes very difficult to change the norm if you cannot build a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm.
It is even harder if you cannot even talk about building a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm.
For many norms, like the taboo on homosexuality which was strong in the US and Europe until recently and is still strong in many places today, the taboo and threat of ostracism are strong enough that people need privacy to build critical mass to change the norm even when the taboo is not enshrined in law, or the law is not usually enforced. This was the mechanism of "coming out of the closet": build critical mass for changing the norm in private, and then take the risk of being in public violation once enough critical mass had been organized that it was plausible to replace the old oppressive/maladaptive norm with a new one.
But yes, obsolete/maladaptive/oppressive norms are often enshrined in law too.
You wouldn't say this about a message encrypted with AES though, since there's not just a "human patience" limit but also a (we are pretty sure) unbearable computational cost.
We don't know, but it's completely plausible that we might find that the cost of analyzing LLMs in their current form, to the point of removing all doubt about how/what they are thinking, is also unbearably high.
We also might find that it's possible for us (or for an LLM training process itself) to encrypt LLM weights in such a way that the only way to know anything about what it knows is to ask it.
I know HN viscerally hates crypto, and yes Trump is embarrassingly corrupt, but the charges against CZ were a greater wrong than whatever quid pro quo happened in the pardon.
This is the most embarrassing part of all of it. The US is ping ponging between two very different ways of misusing state power.
CZ was charged with violating a highly technical US securities law that is not common to most countries despite not being a US citizen or ever setting foot in the US. His crime was letting his employees (also non-US and under no affirmative obligation to learn the laws of every country in the world just because they run a website) tell crypto whales they could use VPNs to get the non-US, non-nerfed version of Binance.
The public's interest in protecting crypto whales from Binance is extremely tenuous. Unsophisticated users would hit the geofence. These were whales using Binance because they wanted to, not because they were tricked.
The US's right to enforce arcane securities law outside its own borders is also very tenuous. If every country pulls this level of aggressive enforcement of atypical law on every website (even geofenced ones!) we will have total chaos. Should China, Russia, or India be able to hunt you down for violating some arcane law? No? Then why should the US?
This is also happening in the context of an active public debate over the application of this law within the US, one cryptocurrency supporters won fairly definitively in the last election.
Whatever discretion the law provides US enforcers, they should have recognized that it was wrong to use that discretion and left CZ alone once Binance made reasonable gestures at compliance.
Instead, once their political coalition signaled that they should put symbolic heads on platters, they went about scoring career points. This is the kind of misbehavior that drove Aaron Swartz (a friend of mine) to suicide. We should be clear that it's wrong.
And here we are. A choice between venal corruption and cruel punching down at immigrants on one side, and a blind, symbolic use of power for power and ideology's sake on the other.
A country loses its right to "re-establish deterrence" when the population it's "deterring" is born inside its own de-facto borders, and when the only reason it needs to deter so many of them is that they would (rightly) like one of a) sovereignty or b) voting rights inside the federal system that controls their borders and can kick down the doors of the houses they were born in.
If Israel would like to give Gaza full sovereignty, or Palestinians born inside the occupied territories the right to vote in the federal systems that determine their law enforcement environment, we can talk about deterrence and law enforcement respectively.
Israel has unilateral control of who it recognizes as its citizens, and what sovereign states it recognizes. No complaint about current or past bad behavior by the Palestinians excuses its failure to grant sovereignty or voting rights to people under its territorial control.
> A country loses its right to "re-establish deterrence" when the population it's "deterring" is born inside its own de-facto borders, and when the only reason it needs to deter so many of them is that they would (rightly) like one of a) sovereignty or b) voting rights inside the federal system that controls their borders and can kick down the doors of the houses they were born in.
It's not just Palestinians they needed to deter, by the way most Israelis were also born within the borders as well. Israel has in the past made efforts to give more sovereignty to Palestinians but those efforts have largely backfired. I think initial efforts really need to focus on de-radicalization of Palestinians first before there's any reasonable chance another attempt at giving them more sovereignty will be more successful.
> If Israel would like to give Gaza full sovereignty, or Palestinians born inside the occupied territories the right to vote in the federal systems that determine their law enforcement environment, we can talk about deterrence and law enforcement respectively.
They already tried that[0], it didn't work out and arguably made the situation worse as they voted for Hamas[1] which quite openly advocates for the destruction of Israel.
> Israel has unilateral control of who it recognizes as its citizens, and what sovereign states it recognizes. No complaint about current or past bad behavior by the Palestinians excuses its failure to grant sovereignty or voting rights to people under its territorial control.
Are you seriously suggesting Israel can just give citizenship/voting rights to all Palestinians and make a group that largely wants their destruction a voting majority? There's a reason this will basically never happen, and that reason is that it would effectively be suicidal for Israelis. This sort of one-state solution is completely unrealistic. Some variation of a two-state solution is probably the most realistic, but I think we're a long way off from that being viable due to a lack of Palestinian desire for peaceful coexistence.
> Are you seriously suggesting Israel can just give citizenship/voting rights to all Palestinians and make a group that largely wants their destruction a voting majority?
Can you think of any reason why Palestinians might feel this way? Does anything come to mind?
Since the 1990s Israel has been trying to give them a state, to varying degrees. They got civil and security autonomy in Areas A of the West Bank, for example. And Israel pulled her citizens out of the Gaza strip in 2005.
The problem is that the PA, who rules the West Bank are extremely corrupt, and Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction. Neither side has been actually performing all the functions of state, UNRWA has been doing that.
The leaders of Hamas have stated the the Jewish state is to destroyed and the Jewish residents exterminated.
The PA leaders have stated that the German genocide of Jews never occurred.
And Egyptian, Jordanian, Palestinian, Libyan, and Iraqi leaders have all stated the the idea of a Palestinian People was invented in the 1960s. No joke.
If you want to start pulling out quotes to judge merit in the Middle East, there's enough material to hang anybody.
The leaders of Israel have not just spoken about it, they have actually destroyed the Palestinian State in the last few months. They have killed tens of thousands of kids.
Then from where came the rockets that were shot at Ashdod, Barnea, Nitzan, Kfar Aza, Miflasim, Saad, and Nir Am come from? This was during Yom Kippor, the Jew's holiest day.
You are invited to check that those rockets were fired from the Gaza strip. I know, I live walking distance from the strip. And you should then realize that the sources who tell you that Hamas is not shooting at Israel are using the tactic of Lies of Omission to influence your opinion.
I won't dispute that 50 people were killed yesterday, I have no idea, and I don't know how many of them were killed by Hamas and how many of them were killed by Israel. The Arab media reports all of them as being martyrs because that is their culture. The Western media just translates with the Arab media says. I do know that yesterday, Yom Kippur or the Jew's holiest day of the year, Hamas shot barrages of rockets at Israeli cities and towns. I don't know how many of those rockets fell back into the Gaza strip, typically a third of them do. So go figure how many of the 50 Gazans were killed by Hamas own rockets. In any case, when the Gazans decide that they've suffered too much then they are invited and welcomed to return the hostages. The war will be over that minute.
It is very telling that the side which has the ability to end the suffering now, by returning the hostages, chooses not to do that.
So the photos of flattened buildings are all "hamas"? You came in, blew up everything, and now you are saying "they did it to themselves, that wasn't us". Their dead kids - oh they did that? The occupation? Oh, that's their fault! If only they would start being nice, so we can stop killing them and give them a city! Ah let me build a settlement in their land - but it's THEIR fault!
> So the photos of flattened buildings are all "hamas"?
No, if buildings are flattened then that's not Hamas. Israel uses HE explosive, Hamas uses FA. HE is the one that levels buildings, FA is the one that leaves burn marks. Just like we saw at the AlAhli hospital where 500 people were killed - burn marks. Flattened buildings are Israeli munitions.
> Their dead kids - oh they did that? The occupation? Oh, that's their fault!
Often, yes. This is not disputed among Gazans. By their culture, no matter which side had the hand in killing you, you are a martyr and afforded the rewards of heaven.
I suggest you go open the guys and Telegram channels. There's a photograph being shared right now of half a dozen Gazans that were killed by other Gazan's hands. All piled up on a blanket.
> The occupation? Oh, that's their fault!
There's no dispute that the beginning of the occupation is squarely on the Arabs, the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank lasted 19 years. That said, both sides are responsible for it having been dragged out for an additional 60 years. Various Israeli governments have had different levels of intentions of giving or not giving the Palestinians certain autonomies and land. But no matter what the intentions of any specific Israeli government, the Palestinians have rejected every single offer. At some point one has to be content with what they've gotten, and realize that they can't destroy the other side completely and those people need some place to live. We, the jews, watched the British give over three quarters of the land of Palestine to the Hashemite kingdom, and left us less than 25%. And we were content with that. Then the UN came in and gave half of that to an Arab state and half of that to a Jewish state. And we were content with that. But then seven Arab nations invaded us to slaughter us. The Jews were ethically cleansed during that war from the West Bank and other places. Just as the Jews were content with what we were offered when we were weak, so should one reasonably expect the Arabs to be content and realize that we're not going anywhere and we need a safe place to live as well.
> If only they would start being nice, so we can stop killing them and give them a city!
Yes, generally in Western culture it is expected that when you want something from somebody, you treat them nicely. Especially if what you want is to live next door to them.
> Ah let me build a settlement in their land
Their land? Are you pulling the Arab Land card? How would you respond to British who reject Arab immigration to Great Britain on the basis of GB being White Land? The Jews have 3000 continuous years of history in the West Bank, broken only for 19 years when Jordan ethnically cleansed the West Bank of Jews. Even Israel didn't ethnically cleanse the land she won, Israel was (and remains) 20% Arab. If you support ideas of one-race-only Land and ethnic cleansing, then you and I will never agree.
> Then give the inhabitants of the land citizenship and the right to vote! It's simple.
Effectively saying Israel should have over control of their government to a majority voting block that will likely elect terrorists again just isn't something that's ever going to happen. There's a reason the international community largely regards a one-state solution as entirely non-viable.
Either you know what the consequence of that would be, and you therefore seek to destroy the Jewish state. Or you do not know what the consequence of that would be, and you therefore should not be talking about a subject that you know little about.
However, there are no groups vying for government in the Levant which are secular in nature other than the Jewish leftist groups. And none of the other groups have a culture compatible with those Jewish leftist values.
What I can't unsee is your argument depends on Palestinians having no agency. And thus blameless.
As soon as one assumes they do then ones sympathy is very limited indeed. Bookends for me are Munich and finally 10/7. And I'm just done with that group of people. They'd be way better off if everyone abandoned them.
Discussing this topic with you is impossible because you have committed to spreading Israeli state propaganda regardless of what the actual facts of the situation are. If you are unmoved by the children being savagely blown apart by Israeli rockets because you equate that with some Arab states bad-mouthing Israel then I fear nothing will ever convince you that Palestinians are human. Have a good day and if you have kids, give them a hug and be glad they don't live in Gaza.
> Discussing this topic with you is impossible because you have committed to spreading Israeli state propaganda regardless of what the actual facts of the situation are.
If I have stated something infactual, point it out. I can back up every fact that I've stated.
> If you are unmoved by the children being savagely blown apart by Israeli rockets because you equate that with some Arab states bad-mouthing Israel
You are correct that I don't use emotional strategy in my arguments, nor am I swayed by emotional arguments. I stick to facts. And if you did too, you would recognize that one third of the Hamas rockets fall back into the Gaza strip and kill Palestinians as well. If you were to read the Palestinian Telegram channels like I read, you would have seen the recent little girl being destroyed by an IED that was placed to attack Israeli soldiers. The Muslim culture considers all killed to be martyrs, no matter whose hand killed them. The Western media treating this as if Israel killed every martyr is disingenuous. If you really cared about Palestinian lives, you would recognize that Hamas is also a major factor in killing Palestinians today, and that Hamas could end this entire war by returning the hostages any minute.
> then I fear nothing will ever convince you that Palestinians are human.
How many Palestines in Palestine have you talked to in the recent past? I talk with them almost weekly: face to face, and online. In English, in Arabic, and in Hebrew, in their own towns. You'll see in my past posts that I quote them often, both in defence and in opposition to the state of Israel, and both in defence and in opposition to the Palestinian cause.
> Have a good day and if you have kids, give them a hug and be glad they don't live in Gaza.
Thank you, I hug my children and like you said, I am glad that they don't live in the Gaza strip.
Why not? It was part of Mandatory Palestine, lost to Jordanian occupation in the war for independence, and in 1967 recovered by Israeli forces in the same manner that Jordanian forces took it in the previous war. It had a Jewish population for the past 3,000 years, the only exception being the 19 years that the Jordanians held it because the Jordanians ethnically cleansed the area upon conquering it. At what point in this timeline do the Israelis lose claim to the area, or what have I misrepresented in the timeline?
> Being forced into a never ending apartheid situation may also be the reason.
An occupation is not apartheid.
> Give them voting rights
Israel tried that...Palestinians straight up voted for Hamas terrorists[0] who promptly eliminated voting rights(although based on opinion polling Hamas would likely be elected again).
> give them a state
Israel tried moving towards that in Gaza[1], it backfired spectacularly leading to the current conflict.
Any other ideas on how to move towards peaceful coexistence? I think the first step is some sort of de-radicalization program, but not sure how one would implement that.
Apartheid by definition means race based discrimination, which is different from citizenship based discrimination(which basically all countries have to various degrees).
Anyone in the world who has one race can freely move there. People of other races cannot. Rights are awarded based on race. Nothing to do with citizenship.
> Anyone in the world who has one race can freely move there. People of other races cannot. Rights are awarded based on race. Nothing to do with citizenship.
You're obviously referring to a Israeli citizenship law[0] here. Your claim that it has nothing to do with citizenship makes no sense.
So eternal apartheid? That's what will make the Palestinians happy? When the Tamil Tigers were defeated, they were able to vote in their country. The separatists in Spain get to vote in Spain. The kurds get to vote in Turkey.
Israel is the only country that says: do not separate and create your own state, but at the same time if you stay here, we will NOT give you civil rights.
> So eternal apartheid? That's what will make the Palestinians happy? When the Tamil Tigers were defeated, they were able to vote in their country. The separatists in Spain get to vote in Spain. The kurds get to vote in Turkey.
A military occupation is not an apartheid, apartheid is race based discrimination, the occupation here is citizenship based discrimination(which basically all countries have in various forms). I'm not really sure what the best solution here is, but it's probably going to need to involve some serious de-radicalization on the part of the Palestinian people and then some form of a two-state solution.
> Israel is the only country that says: do not separate and create your own state, but at the same time if you stay here, we will NOT give you civil rights.
They tried that approach already with Gaza, it backfired massively. It's pretty obvious giving the people who elected terrorists(and based on Palestinian opinion polling they would likely elect Hamas again) the right to vote in Israeli elections isn't going to lead to a peaceful coexistence.
An eternal military occupation, where the GOVERNMENT says - you will NEVER get a country, and you will NEVER be part of our country IS apartheid.
These are direct, unambiguous statements from the Prime Minister and all members of the cabinet. They have said that the Palestinians will NEVER get a state.
So what are you saying then about Israel wanting a two state solution? They have said there will be no state, and they have said they will not give civil rights.
> An eternal military occupation, where the GOVERNMENT says - you will NEVER get a country, and you will NEVER be part of our country IS apartheid.
That's not apartheid, apartheid means race based discrimination which is simply not an accurate characterization of what is going on here.
> These are direct, unambiguous statements from the Prime Minister and all members of the cabinet. They have said that the Palestinians will NEVER get a state.
Israel isn't a dictatorship and these things can change over time, I'm certainly no fan of Netanyahu in general, right now there is very little support for a two state solution amongst Israelis because they largely don't believe the Palestinians currently have a desire to live in peace with Israeli Jews. Unfortunately they appear to be correct for the time being but if those viewpoints were to change on the Palestinian side I would expect Israeli opinions to change as well. I'm just not sure how you de-radicalize a population like the Palestinians.
> So what are you saying then about Israel wanting a two state solution? They have said there will be no state, and they have said they will not give civil rights.
My point is that Israelis in the past have supported a two state solution, obviously there is currently a war going on right now so a two state solution is not going to happen any time soon.
> This is apartheid.
That's still not apartheid, it's an occupation, there's a difference.
> Israel isn't a dictatorship and these things can change over time
Indeed, Israel is a democracy, and things have in fact changed over time. These changes in Israeli public opinion have been based largely on the actions of the Palestinians.
There was optimism about peace in 2007, after the withdrawal from Gaza: 70% of Israelis supported the two-state solution. After the Hamas massacres in 2023, there was 70% opposition to the two-state solution.
It is race based because if there was a jewish person living in Palestine, they could apply for and get the right to vote. A muslim person cannot.
The Israeli PM has said: There will never be a Palestinian state. If you plan to eternally occupy and dominate a people, what is the difference to Apartheid?
> It is race based because if there was a jewish person living in Palestine, they could apply for and get the right to vote. A muslim person cannot.
Jews are not allowed to live in Palestine controlled territories at all(i.e. Gaza and West Bank areas A/B). This still wouldn't be race based discrimination however. Apartheid is a form of discrimination among citizens, immigration law is a somewhat separate issue. Many countries take factors into account when it comes to immigration laws that wouldn't be applied with regards to those who are already citizens. You don't see those cases of immigration law preferences being called Apartheid in general.
> The Israeli PM has said: There will never be a Palestinian state.
Israel has elections and things can change.
> If you plan to eternally occupy and dominate a people, what is the difference to Apartheid?
That's still not race based discrimination so not Apartheid.
Israel was formed atop the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians (not to mention massacring of >5000). There were no Israeli citizens before it was formed, this was purely racial discrimination.
Palestinians under Israeli occupation generally have no pathway to Israeli citizenship, with the exception of those in East Jerusalem, which is occupied under international law but is considered part of Israel by Israel; in the West Bank there is a process to apply for Israeli citizenship, but only a small percentage of Palestinians in East Jerusalem can become citizens every year (I believe I read it was <5% of those who applied).
People who are not Palestinian, anywhere in the world, can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah. This pathway is denied to Palestinians, especially those under occupation.
So I don't know how you can claim this is not race based discrimination.
> It's pretty obvious giving the people who elected terrorists
8% or fewer of the people in Gaza today actually voted for Hamas. Most of them were not even born at the time of the last election, and combined with those who were under 18 at the last election and those who voted for other parties, 92% of people alive in Gaza today had no part in Hamas coming to power.
> Israel was formed atop the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians (not to mention massacring of >5000).
There were various push and pull factors involved, it's not entirely accurate to say they were all forcibly expelled(there were many that were not expelled as well).
> There were no Israeli citizens before it was formed, this was purely racial discrimination.
Palestinians that remained were given Israeli citizenship however.
> only a small percentage of Palestinians in East Jerusalem can become citizens every year (I believe I read it was <5% of those who applied).
It's around 5% that have Israeli citizenship I think, about a third that apply have been approved with the remaining being rejected or postponed looks like. The majority do not apply for Israeli citizenship for various reasons.[0]
> People who are not Palestinian, anywhere in the world, can convert to Judaism and make Aliyah. This pathway is denied to Palestinians, especially those under occupation.
There being no Jews allowed to live in Palestinian controlled territories(i.e. Gaza and West Bank areas A/B) may make converting a bit uncommon/difficult(converting in general is rather difficult AFAIU), but I don't think there's any outright prohibition on accepting Palestinian conversions for the purposes of citizenship(even though in practice it may be extremely rare).
> So I don't know how you can claim this is not race based discrimination.
I'm not claiming there's no race based discrimination when it comes to Israels immigration policy. Apartheid would be considered racial discrimination between those that are already citizens however, which is a different issue. Many countries have immigration laws that have various forms of racial discrimination and you don't normally see those cases described as apartheid either. I am not a citizen of the country I was born in due to these sort of policies.
> 8% or fewer of the people in Gaza today actually voted for Hamas. Most of them were not even born at the time of the last election, and combined with those who were under 18 at the last election and those who voted for other parties, 92% of people alive in Gaza today had no part in Hamas coming to power.
That may be true but keep in mind Palestinian opinion polling does indicate Hamas would still likely win elections if they were in fact held today.
Israel's main best option is to give Palestinians, at least those unambiguously born under Israel's control, the right to vote in Israeli federal elections.
A government that can kick down the door of the house you were born in has a duty to give you voting rights.
(And if your ethnic group is denied voting rights, you have a basic duty to your fellow man to raise hell until you get those rights, because arbitrary starvation is always on the table for your children until you get them.)
International law forbids the occupying power to give voting rights to occupied regions.
Its also a bit unclear what you mean by "unambiguously under Israeli control" since Palestinians in occupied palestinian territories aren't unambigiously under Israeli control, they had little control over the inside of Gaza until recently, and have some power in the west bank that is shared with the PA. Neither is "unambiguous control". The only group unambigiously under their control are the Palestinians inside Israel proper who as far as i understand do have full voting rights.
If you think military presence should equal voting rights, than i think that would imply that Iraq should be able to vote in US presedential elections.
I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.
The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control.
The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor.
They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up.
And for whatever limited access their law enforcement institutions had to Gaza for kicking in doors, they just did missile attacks on cars or apartments instead of kicking in doors, because they had no reason to care how many bystanders they killed.
> I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.
The US had troops in iraq that were going around kicking in doors. I'm not trying to make any claim as to wether the invasion was a good or bad thing (actually i think it was a bad thing), but it clearly meets your definition of when people should get a vote.
At the same time i think most americans would view the proposition that iraqis should vote in us federal elections absurd.
> The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control.
This is a bit of a goal post move but what time frame do you think is relavent? America invaded iraq in 2003. They left briefly but then came back. They still have a small number of troops there right now. There is a generation of iraqis who have grown up never knowing a time where american troops werent in their country.
> The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor.
I'm not sure the relavence. Most borders in europe are like this, they dont vote in each others elections. I don't think at present this would describe the border situation in Israel/Palestine.
> They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up.
Sure, and that's an argument people use to claim that the territory is under Israeli occupation (or sometimes they argue that would not be enough to start an occupation but its enouth to make the occupation not terminate). I think everyone agrees that Israel exerts significant military control over occupied Palestinian territories. That is why they are called "occupied".
International law forbids a lot of things Israel already does. If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders.
The point of making voting from occupied territories illegal is that this discourages settlers from the occupying nation to move into the occupied territories before the conflict is over. Otherwise the occupying power could send settlers into another country and pretend that it is merely defending its own citizens, when in reality it is still engaged in offensive war.
Israel's internationally recognized borders are the borders of Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 borders were ceasefire lines - the fact that they were not internationally recognized borders was for decades the justification for cross-border attacks.
> The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.
I think this is a bit unfair. Whether you agree or disagree, opponents of Israel have been pretty clear that they think the settlements violate article 49 of the fourth geneva convention. Specificly "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Sometimes people also argue that the pipelining of Israeli law into settlements violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I think the argument is that you can only distinguish between citizens and non-citizens on your own territory and thus the way Israeli law is applied in settlements but not outside them is a violation. I'm not super familiar with the argument so i might be mis-stating it. I also think its a bit of a catch-22 since Israel isn't allowed to legislate for the Palestinians either. Regardless it is a rule that they point to.
So i don't think its fair to say opponents of Israeli settlements just claim illegality without pointing to which laws. They do point to laws and rules.
But see, we are already past the "they don't ever say which rule" and on to, they do say which rule but their interpretation is incorrect (and hey i even agree with you on that part some of the time).
> The 49th article of the fourth Geneva convention is the usual answer to that question, but it is wrong. Israel does not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies", every single Jew in the West Bank got up and returned to or moved to the West Bank of their own accord.
While i agree it is not clear cut in the geneva convention, generally the argument is voluntary transfer is still a transfer. The prohibition is not just about preventing people from being moved against their will but also about preventing attempts to change the demographic composition of an area. See also what the red cross says about it
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130
I'm not really here to argue these points, i don't necessarily even agree with all of them, i just think you're being a bit straw-many. Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest.
> Arguments are more powerful if you engage with the strongest form of the counter-argument, not the weakest.
Your are correct, thank you. I'll emphasize that there was no international concern expressed when Jordan changed the demographic composition of Jerusalem and the West Bank by expelling the Jews. Only when Jews moved back to Jerusalem and the West Bank, after 19 years of absence, is there suddenly concern the demographic composition of of the city.
Who cares? My point is the international community regards the settlements as illegal and if Israel cared about that they would immediately and completely withdraw.
And my point is that the international community, which mostly comprise of Arab nations, Muslim nations, or nations that rely on Arab oil, has been shown to levy accusations and resolutions against the state that the Arab and Muslim nations are united to destroy.
If there was merit to the claim that Jews building houses in the West Bank is illegal, they would have stated which law is being transgressed.
Out of curiosity, do you think Israel could 'find a law being broken' if thousand of Palestinians started building houses, towns, farms, and exclusive roads inside Israel - all protected by Palestinian soldiers?
Or would it just be so obviously illegal to adults?
First, the easy one. The only exclusive roads are exclusive to Palestinians. There are no Jew-only roads, despite our enemies saying it again and again.
Second, the other easy one. Your question is predicated on the assumption that those building houses, towns, and farms are doing so against the will of the body which administrates the territory. Jews in the West Bank build in Area C - other than a tiny extremist minority whose structures are then wiped away by the Israeli authorities. I'm certain if you're partaking in this conversation then you are familiar enough with the administrative divisions of the West Bank to know that Area C was designated by agreement with the Palestinian Authority for Israeli civil development.
There's two ways you could counter my argument - I'm interested to see which one you choose! The Shabbat is coming in soon, so I'll answer you on Sunday or Monday. Shabbat Shalom.
What's wrong with that? Does the United States not have US-only roads (that Mexican citizens in Mexico) can't drive on.
Those roads link Areas C. Either you know what that means so I don't need to explain it, or you don't know enough about the agreements between the PA and the state of Israel to discuss this. Just in case you are in the later camp, as I stated, there are Palestinian-only roads in Areas A. Those are found throughout the West Bank, everywhere. Only in a single place exists the Israeli-only road. So the argument about "Jew-only roads" is not only a lie, it is an inversion of true state of affairs.
the comparison id imagine is the highway from Washington to alaska.
the americans paid to build it, but its a canadian road going through canadian territory and its canada who decides who drives on it, and thats not by citizenship but by licence. people with recognized licences can drive on it.
If I'm not mistaken, and please correct me if I am mistaken because I've not been to that area, the road in question connects Area C to Jerusalem. There is no utility for anybody to use that road who is not entering or leaving Area C.
Here's the third way - acknowledging that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law, regardless of whether they have Israeli planning permission.
It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in breach of international declarations.
That the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter is simply a matter of real politik dealing with Genocide, and is irrelevant to the overall judgement.
* The International Court of Justice
Israel sleigh-of-hand in designating "occupied" territories as "disputed" by virtue of the fact that "there were no established sovereigns in the West Bank or Gaza Strip prior to the Six Day War" was roundly rejected in the International Court of Justice over 20 years ago
//The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, when two conditions are fulfilled, namely that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized), and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, then the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.//
I'll address only the first page of that document, it should be enough.
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by
force,
This is the most nuanced line of the document, as Jordan attacked Israel. Up until about two years ago, even Arabs (Gazans and West Bankers) would clearly state that Egypt started the war - that narrative is now that Israel started the war with Egypt. Let's settle on it being in dispute - if you're familiar with the events then we could argue either way. If you're not familiar with the events, then I'll win that part based on causus belli. In either case, Jordan attempted to acquire territory by invading Israel. Israel won on the Jordanian front, but it was the Jordanians who were fighting to acquire territory.
If you consider that a weak argument, then consider also that the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel were the borders of Mandatory Palestine by principal of Uti possidetis juris. This was justification for cross-border raids for decades - both before and after the 1967 war. The Israeli-Jordanian frontier was a cease-fire line, not an international border. Thus, the world did not recognize the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank as legal - only Iraq did (the kings of Jordan and Iraq were brothers). Thus, Israel did not "acquire territory" on the Jordanian front, rather they recovered the occupied West Bank (occupied by Jordan). OK, actually, Israel did actually acquire some territory on the east side of the river. We left that area in I think 1994 or so when we made peace with Jordan.
> Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide
scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of
12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the
International Court of Justice,
Here is where legitimate condemnation of Israel can begin. Israel did not annex the territory it recovered. The reasons is quite clear - despite repeated cries to the contrary, Israel does generally not expel populations. Yes, there were expulsions, I'm not blind to that. But you are aware that the Israeli side states that the Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so at the beheast of Arab politicians requets - and there is ample evidence of this. Yet, many didn't leave and Israel became 20% Arab. Contrast with the West Bank, which Jordan ethnically cleansed of Jews after the 1948 war. Yet you hear no cries about that ethnic cleansing - only cries when Jews return to the farms they were evicted from by the Jordanians.
> Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition,
character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East
Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements,
transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and
displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law
and relevant resolutions,
This is where people should start opening their eyes. Jerusalem had already been Jewish majority for decades even before the British Mandate for Palestine started. Jordan completely altered the demographic composition, character and status of Jerusalem when it ethnically cleansed the Jews after the 1948 war - so for 19 years out of 3000 years there were no Jews in that area. Yet, when the Jews return (after only 19 years) that is considered us altering the demographic composition,
character and status? Any objective observer sees the farce.
> Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are
dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967
lines,
This is true. Jews building houses on the West Bank does imperil the ability to form a racist, no-Jew-allowed ethnostate on the West Bank. Why progressive leftists think that such a state is the proper solution to the conflict is beyond me.
> Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its
resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including
“natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since
March 2001,
This document is from 2015, no? So because seventy years prior to the writing of the document there were 19 years of no Jews in the West Bank, all Jews who returned must stop building houses? And dismantle the prior 14 years' worth of building, even though those houses were built in areas that the Palestinian leadership and Israel agreed are set aside for Israeli civil development, and in return the Palestinians got areas for their own civil development (which there is no call to dismantle)? As an objective outsider, how does this even make sense to you?
> Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian
Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all
those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the
confiscation of illegal weapons
Did any member of the Quartet (UN, USA, EU, and Russia) begin, not to mention maintain, any operation aimed at confronting those engaged in terror? Or dismantling terrorist capabilities? Or confiscate illegal weapons? No, only two of those bodies were active in the holy land at the time. The UN "peacekeepers" in Lebanon abetted and filmed Hezbollah's cross-border raid in 2006, in which Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped. They didn't film to help, they actually refused to hand over the tapes to Israel. And the EU actually funded (and still funds) the movement of Arabs from Areas A and B to Areas C, in contradition to the agreements made between the PA and the state of Israel. I speak Arabic, I have been to West Bank Arab villages (I won't do it today, I'd be murdered, but I've done it in the past). Many of the hastily-built Arab encampments in Areas C have plaques describing how the EU and member nations have funded construction. The residents will tell you unabashedly from which Areas A and B villages they came from.
> But you are aware that the Israeli side states that the Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so at the beheast of Arab politicians requets - and there is ample evidence of this. Yet, many didn't leave and Israel became 20% Arab.
Bro really said: "the Palestinians did the nakba to themselves"...
Well, don't take my word for it. Maybe these are people that you trust more than me.
> "We brought disaster upon the refugees, by calling on them to leave their homes. We promised them that their expulsion would be temporary, and that they would return within a few days. We had to admit that we were wrong."
- Syrian Prime Minister Khalid AlAzm
> "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes, while it is we who made them leave."
- Same guy, Syrian PM Khalid AlAzm
> "The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."
- Jordanian newspaper Falastin (Interesting fact, if I'm not mistaken the name of this very newspaper was the first Arab use of the word Falastin - way back in 1911!)
> "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."
Obviously you can find quotes to support such a position. Just like I can run around quoting Israeli PMs about how Palestinians are rats and how they must all be killed. You have to look at the whole of the evidence, not individual quotes.
You're correct, of course. Let's look at the Israeli declaration of independence:
> WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
> WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
AFAIK no but the person you responded to is dogwhistling by repeatedly referencing "arab" and "muslim". They're using it to imply that not only does the UN not matter, they're also positioning these words as the implicit enemy.
It's a bad faith way to approach this argument, so asking logical questions won't make a difference and will tire you out. That's the core strategy behind that behaviour.
I think a more charitable read would be they are claiming that Israel's geopolitical rivals have undue influence in certain UN organs and are using that influence to unfairly single out Israel.
Its not exactly a crazy claim. The UN is a political entity, its not above the influence of geopolitics. The former secretary general of the UN, Ban ki moon at one point (quite a while ago now) said that "Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel".
If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.
While that is true, it does not change the fact that the internationally-recognized borders are those of Mandatory Palestine. Those were the internationally-recognized borders even between 1948 and 1967, which is why the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized, and also why Egypt was able to squeeze all her refugees into the Gaza Strip before severing ties with the strip in 1956. Or did you not know why Egypt has no refugee camps and almost no refugees today?
I think you're confusing "internationally recognized" with something like "there is an interpretation of international law that supports ..." (and it was unwise of me to use the term "international law" in an earlier comment because it contributes to this blurring, although I didn't realize that at the time).
If the borders were internationally recognized, it would mean that other countries agree that those are the borders. But as far as I know no country recognizes the borders of Mandatory Palestine as the borders of Israel, nor officially recognizes Israel's occupation of the West Bank as legal. I'm not talking about citing chapter and verse of some treaty or some principle like "Uti Possidetis Juris". If the fact of the matter is that other countries do not recognize those borders as the borders of Israel, then those are not the internationally recognized borders of Israel.
Internationally recognized under Uti Possidetis Juris, the principal under which most of the world's international borders have been defined (I think slightly beating out war, but falling behind geography).
I think this argument is a little difficult to make given Israel right now does not overtly claim that mandatory palestine's borders are its borders. If Israel openly claimed this consistently starting from its war of independence to present day, there would probably be a stronger argument, but its probably a bit too late at this point.
I am not making the argument that those should be the final borders. I'm responding to this quote:
> If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders.
I am demonstrating that the people who are calling for all types of solutions, are not familiar with the full situation and are calling for things that are the opposite of what they actually think should happen.
Bro, I get that you care about Israel, but posting sophistry to Hacker News is not going to change the fundamentals.
Israel is going to be "the country that committed genocide" unless Israelis find a way to stop it. There's no "but you need to understand the complexities of the situation" when it comes to killing hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians.
Then we should both do everything that we can to end this war before the death toll get to the "hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians" stage.
How about Israel stop fighting, right now? Right this minute. The magazines come out of the rifles and the fighter jets stay on the ground. As soon as the Gazans decide that this is what they want, they can return the hostages and this will happen.
I am Israeli and I completely oppose the war ending until the hostages are all returned. You said it yourself, hostages are returned and the war ceases. Return the remaining hostages and we will have no more need for war.
At the very least, acknowledge that war is expensive and one of the most common tropes thrown at the Jews is that we are cheap. We don't want this expensive war either.
> I am Israeli and I completely oppose the war ending until the hostages are all returned.
Then surely you are capable of empathizing with Palestinians. Israel holds thousands of their (civilians!) hostage, in violation of international law, with no fair or expedient trial planned.
Demanding the slaughter of captors does not set a safe precedent for the release of Israel's political prisoners.
> We don't want this expensive war either.
Israel is a nuclear nation. Your countrymen chose to invest in catastrophic war as a way of life, no different from America or Russia. Don't weep about the price of fighting until the IAEA inspects Dimona proper.
Much of the criticism of Israel is self-serving, one-sided, and predicated on definition twisting.
After 9/11 there was ample “glass parking lot” sentiment. If some enclave of Canadians or Mexicans tortured, murdered, raped thousands then kidnapped hundreds of Americans those parts of Canada/Mexico wouldn’t exist any more. And rightfully so. The hyperbole and constant double standards in the criticism undermine the credibility of all involved (I mean, Sudan… Congo… Afghanistans border…).
Every westerner involved in dogpiling needs fundamental clarity in the order of the “Death to ____” claims. Every, single, argument against The Jews applies immediately afterwards to The Brits, The French, The Spanish, and Great Satan itself: The US.
“500 thousand dead Iraqi children” is a “genocide” too, if we don’t care about facts or words. That specific strain of propaganda directly supports 9/11 style attacks and ongoing terrorism against the US.
I deeply disappointed in the mush brained cowardice we’re displaying. The best liberal democracy in the Middle East, and victim of constant horrific terrorism, deserves better.
>How about Israel stop fighting, right now? Right this minute. The magazines come out of the rifles and the fighter jets stay on the ground. As soon as the Gazans decide that this is what they want, they can return the hostages and this will happen.
The Israeli government can stop fighting in a way that's currently killing Gazan civilians and destroying Gazan civil infrastructure.
The Gazan civilians cannot release the hostages. Those hostages are held by Hamas, the Gazan government.
This broad-brush blaming leads to despicable crimes against humanity, and is why so many nations have agreed to rules of war. It is inhumane to intentionally punish civilians for what their government is doing. Collateral damage is inevitable, but there must be an effort to minimize it and to actively preserve the lives of civilians. If that means sending in convoys of food trucks after securing a city, then that's what a humane government should do.
The funny thing is, I agree with you about the contradictions in recognizing borders for the state of Israel, depending on what they're arguing at any particular time.
The borders of a potential Palestinian state and the state of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan is one of the most difficult conundrums to consider. I can think of a few "resolutions", none of them really "solutions". I make a huge effort to understand the Israeli side, the greater Arab side, the general Muslim side, and the side of the Palestinians who actually live there. Very few people - from any of those categories - make any effort to understand anybody else's side.
There are troops there, The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers, the area has not been annexed (has not been integrated into normal civil law of the country with the troops)*.
That is a textbook definition of what an occupation is.
* except for East Jerusalem, which would normally be considered annexed, but the UNSC has decided (with the binding force of international law) that it is de jure occupied. However Palestinians in east Juruselum can apply for citizenship and get voting rights.
> The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers
Are the governing powers legitimate? Hamas banned elections after they won the 2006 election. Why should they be considered any more of a governing powers than Israel? Especially when literally the entire broader region was historically Jewish, long before the modern state of Israel, long before Islamic Arabs (now calling themselves Palestinian) were in the area?
What I see is that the Islamic Arabs in Israel are living peacefully and are integrated into the “normal civil law”. But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs.
Why is 'legitimate' local government the hurdle here? Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation.
Gaza was de facto administered by the civilian arm of Hamas on the eve of Oct 7, and throughout while there was still infrastructure to speak of, and this is the only sense I understand the term "de facto" to mean when used unqualified; what entity performs the day-to-day administration and security.
It probably doesn't matter much. I agree that both the PA and especially Hamas are despotic dictatorships. So are a lot of countries. That's tragic for Palestinian citizens but ultimately doesn't matter much for determining if a piece of land is independent, occupied or annexed.
Much of it just comes down to drawing a line in the sand at roughly the start of when the United Nations started, and saying this is what the borders are and no one is allowed to change them by force (one of the conditions of joining the UN is to give up the right to acquire territory by force). So from that view, it was egyptian and jordan territory who in turn, supported by the UN, gave it to the palestinian people as respresented by the PA. In a certain way that's pretty arbitrary but i guess its sort of an, it is what it is, sort of thing.
> But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs
The last election was in January 2006 and to vote you had to be 18+. That means anyone now alive who voted for Hamas has to be over 37. That's less than 20% of of the Gaza population. Furthermore, Hamas got a plurality in the 40-45% range, not a majority.
That means it is very likely that under 10% of people who lived in Gaza at the start of the current war voted for Hamas. Probably closer to 7% because the turnout in 2006 was around 80%.
That’s not relevant. Polls tell us the Gaza population supports Hamas today, after October 7. Even without elections, we know what the population stands for - the principles and goals that Hamas practices.
Without some strong general protection isn't that just 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? Seems at least some basic guaranteed rights and freedoms is needed.
> A government that can kick down the door of the house you were born in has a duty to give you voting rights.
100%
The most basic principle in democratic government is that those subject to the monopoly of violence should also have a voice in how that violence is managed.
> The most basic principle in democratic government is that those subject to the monopoly of violence should also have a voice in how that violence is managed.
I'm pretty sure most democracies also have a right to decide who can become a citizen. Forcing a country to give citizenship to enemy combatants would be kinda crazy, regardless of whether or not the territory those combatants operate from is under a military occupation.
The current USA regime is attempting all sorts of dumb nonsense, but birthright citizenship certainly isn't universal among countries either. I'm not a citizen of the country I was born in.
It's always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are: 'it's suicide to treat Palestinians as people'; 'innocent folks will be expelled from their land if we treat Palestinians as people'; "or worse, killed!'
It's bizarre because all the horrible prophecies have already come true, or are coming true, only with the roles reversed: We see that it is actually israel genociding Palestinians, rather than vice versa.
Somehow these doomsaying prophets feel this dystopia is actually totally ok, as long as the victims have a particular religion or skin color. Or, to be charitable, maybe the prophets have been paying exactly zero attention to what israel has been doing to innocent Palestinian civilians over the years.
The last time Palestinians voted they quite literally elected Hamas terrorists[0], you're making it out as if making Jews a minority and Palestinians a majority in Israel wouldn't represent an existential threat to the Jewish population. There are zero Jews living under Palestinian rule(i.e Gaza and the West Bank Areas A/B), why do you think it would be any different if they were given majority voting rights in Israel?
After nearly a century of Israeli oppression and zero interest from the international community, them electing a terrorist organization is certainly understable, even if still not justified. The first step is to reassure Palestinians that their neighbors won't start mass-murdering them again, something Israel has currently no interest in doing.
> The first step is to reassure Palestinians that their neighbors won't start mass-murdering them again, something Israel has currently no interest in doing.
Israelis don't just start killing Palestinians for no reason historically however, that pretty much always happens in response to some form of Palestinian aggression. It's not like Israel can just ignore attacks either as that would just encourage further attacks.
Israel is a settler colonial project, as far as I'm concerned they cast the first stone. Or rather, the British sending them here did. Not that it matters much in the end, but today Israel plays the role of the oppressor and Palestine of the oppressed.
> "This sort of entirely one-sided narrative is a huge impediment to peaceful coexistence."
> "Israelis don't just start killing Palestinians for no reason historically however, that pretty much always happens in response to some form of Palestinian aggression"
Fascinating how these 2 posts came from the same person. You are so close to getting it, you just need to take your advice from the first quote there and apply it to the second quote there.
Notably, israel kills around a hundred innocent Palestinians in Gaza daily, unprovoked, while the Palestinians are queuing for food. israel also regularly stages settler terrorist attacks on innocent Palestinians in the west bank: killing Palestinians; burning Palestinian homes and cars and crops; often claiming Palestinian land as their own. When "the authorities" (the IDF) arrive, they often support the terrorists and join in the violence against Palestinians.
But of course, it was because those innocent Palestinians are "being aggressive" by living in the west bank, which israel says they want, right? (They call it "greater israel", just like how the kremlin calls Ukraine "greater russia"). Obviously israel's ethnic cleansing is justified, because they really want someone else's land and stuff, right?
> At a minimum you should go back to the 1800s
We really don't need to. We just need to go back to the point where international laws came into being, including israel agreeing not to expand their territory through violence (a prerequisite to joining the UN). It doesn't matter who used to own it, what matters is global, international consensus on who owns what now (and who should), and global, international consensus on the right way to behave (in accordance with international law, as judged by the designated international courts). This goes even if israel strongly feels it is biased or unfair: after all, pretty much every criminal thinks the justice system that criticizes them is unfair. Like, of course criminals would say that, wouldn't they?
> Fascinating how these 2 posts came from the same person. You are so close to getting it, you just need to take your advice from the first quote there and apply it to the second quote there.
My point is that this conflict can be characterized heavily by back and forth attacks and retaliation from both sides.
> Notably, israel kills around a hundred innocent Palestinians in Gaza daily, unprovoked, while the Palestinians are queuing for food.
This claim is just wildly inaccurate, it's completely divorced from reality, nobody, not even the UN or the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry claim that around a hundred Palestinians are killed a day while queuing for food(they claim around 20 on average per day are killed while queuing for food[0]). Keep in mind that these are claims made by the GHM without proving much evidence to validate the circumstances of the claimed deaths at aid distribution sites. These claims are especially suspect since the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry has strong incentives make statements that discourage aid distribution mechanisms which bypass Hamas.
> israel also regularly stages settler terrorist attacks on innocent Palestinians in the west bank: killing Palestinians; burning Palestinian homes and cars and crops; often claiming Palestinian land as their own. When "the authorities" (the IDF) arrive, they often support the terrorists and join in the violence against Palestinians.
Did I ever defend this sort of thing? I agree there are significant issues with West Bank settlers/settlements.
> But of course, it was because those innocent Palestinians are "being aggressive" by living in the west bank, which israel says they want, right? (They call it "greater israel", just like how the kremlin calls Ukraine "greater russia"). Obviously israel's ethnic cleansing is justified, because they really want someone else's land and stuff, right?
You seems to be downplaying Palestinian terrorism in the West Bank by calling it "being aggressive". The term "greater israel" is also problematic in general since there's a wide range of claims people make regarding what that term even means.
Part of the problem here is that there is very little clear delineation regarding who's land it is, you're talking about a region where many borders were essentially armistice lines as opposed to clearly recognized borders. Keep in mind that Palestinians themselves largely reject even the 1967 borders as they believe all of Israel to be their land. This is one of the reasons attempts at a two state solution have likely failed.
The situation with Russia and Ukraine is not very comparable since there were mutually recognized borders[1] that Russia unambiguously violated.
> We really don't need to. We just need to go back to the point where international laws came into being, including israel agreeing not to expand their territory through violence (a prerequisite to joining the UN). It doesn't matter who used to own it, what matters is global, international consensus on who owns what now (and who should), and global, international consensus on the right way to behave (in accordance with international law, as judged by the designated international courts).
The issue here is international law is not remotely clear either, a real problem is a lack of peace agreements establishing recognized borders between parties, parties(i.e. Lebanon, Syria) that have so far refused to even sign peace agreements that would recognize Israel as a legitimate state.
The situation with Palestine is even more convoluted, since prior to 1967 Gaza Was Egyptian controlled territory and the West Bank had been annexed by Jordan. When Israel signed peace agreements with Egypt all territorial claims over Gaza were renounced by Egypt(despite Israel attempting to negotiate the return Gaza to Egypt). Jordan did sign peace agreements with Israel in 1994 and had officially abandoned all claims to the West Bank in 1988 prior to the peace agreements. So essentially we have ended up with a situation where there is land without an established recognized UN state being in control(the state of Palestine is not recognized by the UN).
> This goes even if israel strongly feels it is biased or unfair: after all, pretty much every criminal thinks the justice system that criticizes them is unfair. Like, of course criminals would say that, wouldn't they?
The issue is a lack of peace agreements establishing recognized borders, the UN/international law can not force peace agreements onto warring parties. Once Israel makes peace agreements establishing recognized borders(i.e. with Egypt/Jordan) they have not historically violated those borders. There are also numerous issues in general when it comes to enforcement of international law as UN courts don't really have independent enforcement mechanisms, the Security Council members effectively have veto power over ICJ rulings(which is one reason the UN is going to be incapable of enforcing rulings against Security Council members or their allies). Then there is the fact that Israel(similar to most countries) would be unlikely to follow an international court ruling if in their view the ruling would create an existential threat to their countries existence.
So no, saying we should let international law is the solution here isn't likely to be all that productive when it comes to resolving these issues.
Of course its understandable. Its also understandable that the israelis are not willing to accept people who want to kill them into their state. Both sides want to kill each other.
I don't think most Israelis actually want to kill Palestinians, but at a minimum I do think the majority of Palestinians probably want to expel all Israeli Jews from Israel(at least based on Palestinian opinion polling).
> I don't think most Israelis actually want to kill Palestinians
Then why are they standing by while their democratically elected government enacts a starvation campaign? The reality is that most Israelis are now pro genocide, just like most Palestinians
Your post weirdly focuses on only the concerns of israelis, even though Palestinians are equal people with equal human rights, including an equal right to protection from israeli violence. Do you even realize that you're not treating Palestinians as humans?
> The last time Palestinians voted they quite literally elected Hamas terrorists
The last time israelis voted, they quite literally elected not only terrorists, but war criminals, criminals against humanity, and literal genociders. Obviously that's worse! Thus, israel has no moral high ground here to attack others, and should look inward and fix itself first.
> There are zero Jews living under Palestinian rule
"Palestinian rule" is not a thing at the moment: all Palestinians are currently ruled (dominated even) by a genocidal israeli military occupation that kills hundreds of innocent civilians daily.
> Your post weirdly focuses on only the concerns of israelis, even though Palestinians are equal people with equal human rights, including an equal right to protection from israeli violence. Do you even realize that you're not treating Palestinians as humans?
It's not clear what you're suggesting in practice, we can all say Palestinians should be given equal rights in an ideal world but that doesn't really bring us any closer to resolving the conflict.
> The last time israelis voted, they quite literally elected not only terrorists, but war criminals, criminals against humanity, and literal genociders. Obviously that's worse! Thus, israel has no moral high ground here to attack others, and should look inward and fix itself first.
I'm certainly not a fan of the current Israeli government but with how Israeli elections(proportional representation) work you tend to get more extremist parties than you would in systems like the United States where you usually just end up with a two party system.
> "Palestinian rule" is not a thing at the moment: all Palestinians are currently ruled (dominated even) by a genocidal israeli military occupation that kills hundreds of innocent civilians daily.
There is a form of Palestinian rule in which the Palestinian Authority exercises a certain level of control in the West Bank, in Gaza Hamas still retains some control as well. I would agree it's not the same thing as an independent state but I don't think characterizing it as no Palestinian rule at all is accurate either.
> It's not clear what you're suggesting in practice, we can all say Palestinians should be given equal rights in an ideal world but that doesn't really bring us any closer to resolving the conflict.
That is unnecessary, because Palestinians already have equal rights which are not legally alienable. israel is merely illegally violating them.
It's also not necessary for equal rights to bring us to any sort of resolution. Equal rights are more important than israel's unequal, unilateral safety, and a country whose existence depends on the violation of others' rights, must find a new, legal way to exist instead. Equal rights come first, and only then can we even begin to discuss a resolution. We tried the other way around, and it has failed to produce a resolution after decades of war.
> how Israeli elections(proportional representation) work you tend to get more extremist parties
This seems to be agreeing with me? Like yeah, israelis voted for terrorists, war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders. That is at least as bad as hamas. It's also kind of telling how you refer to a terrorist as an "extremist" when they're israeli. Why soften the language only for 1 ethnic group in the conflict while hardening it for another?
> There is a form of Palestinian rule in which the Palestinian Authority exercises a certain level of control in the West Bank
There is no Palestinian rule. They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis. They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms. Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
> That is unnecessary, because Palestinians already have equal rights which are not legally alienable. israel is merely illegally violating them.
Which rights are you referring to? Do you think they all have a right to full Israeli citizenship?
> It's also not necessary for equal rights to bring us to any sort of resolution. Equal rights are more important than israel's unequal, unilateral safety, and a country whose existence depends on the violation of others' rights, must find a new, legal way to exist instead. Equal rights come first, and only then can we even begin to discuss a resolution. We tried the other way around, and it has failed to produce a resolution after decades of war.
If one knew with a high degree of certainty that giving full voting rights to all Palestinians would result in the elimination of the Jewish population from the land would you still be in favor of giving all Palestinians full voting rights? You seem to be advocating for giving full voting rights to a population which largely doesn't believe in equal rights.
> This seems to be agreeing with me? Like yeah, israelis voted for terrorists, war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders. That is at least as bad as hamas. It's also kind of telling how you refer to a terrorist as an "extremist" when they're israeli. Why soften the language only for 1 ethnic group in the conflict while hardening it for another?
If you're referring to people like Ben-Gvir, then I would agree(as did the Israeli courts and likely most Israelis) that he is a supporter of terrorism. At the same time there have been other Knesset members like Haneen Zoabi who have made statements effectively supporting Palestinian terrorism as well. I'm not sure if there have been war criminals and criminals against humanity elected, that's a much higher bar than merely supporting terrorism(which is something that unfortunately large percentages of Palestinian society supports). Since the claims of genocide against Israel are not supported by the evidence I probably would not agree there have been genociders elected. As I mentioned earlier the way Israeli elections work makes it much easier for extremists to get elected, and this plays out for both sides naturally.
> There is no Palestinian rule.
There is some level of Palestinian rule under the Oslo Accords, I agree it's not a full state but it's arguably not "no Palestinian rule" whatsoever. Hamas had effectively full control of Gaza's territory for many years as well.
> They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis. They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms. Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
There is a military occupation with some level of rule delegated to Palestinian authorities. Palestinian leaders and society have in general not been very supportive of many of those freedoms you mention, especially freedom of speech and freedom of press in addition to other freedoms like freedom of religion(no Jews live in Gaza or West Bank areas A/B at all for example).
> Which rights are you referring to? Do you think they all have a right to full Israeli citizenship?
Whichever rights israelis have, Palestinians also have. Whichever rights israel has, Palestine also has. If israel claims a right to safety from Palestinian attacks, then Palestine has an exactly equal right to safety from israeli attacks. If israel has a right to control their borders, Palestine does too. If israel has a right to 100% control their own trade, then Palestine does, too. This isn't that complicated.
> If one knew with a high degree of certainty that giving full voting rights to all Palestinians would result in the elimination of the Jewish population from the land...
You have this backwards: Palestinians already have rights by virtue of human beings, just like israelis. Likewise, Palestine has rights by virtue of being a country, just like israel. What comes after those rights are respected may be complicated, but is not as important as equal rights. Equal rights is most important, and an oppressor like apartheid South Africa or apartheid israel doesn't get to deny anyone their rights out of fear, or for any other reason.
> There is some level of Palestinian rule under the Oslo Accords
There is no Palestinian rule. They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis. They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms. Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
> Palestinian leaders and society have in general not been very supportive of many of those freedoms you mention
Surprise surprise, israel is even less supportive, and "they did it first" isn't an excuse to deny a person or country their rights.
> I'm not sure if there have been war criminals and criminals against humanity elected
>Since [I personally believe] the claims of genocide against Israel are not supported by the evidence...
While you are no doubt a good person, reality does not depend on what you think or perceive. Luckily, the relevant authorities (international courts, scholarly institutions) seem pretty confident that israeli electees are war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders, so you don't need to be.
> Whichever rights israelis have, Palestinians also have.
I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have different citizenship in general will have different rights.
> Whichever rights israel has, Palestine also has.
If they don't have the same citizenship then they wouldn't have the same rights because they would live under different governments.
> If israel claims a right to safety from Palestinian attacks, then Palestine has an exactly equal right to safety from israeli attacks. If israel has a right to control their borders, Palestine does too. If israel has a right to 100% control their own trade, then Palestine does, too. This isn't that complicated.
It's unclear what you mean by this in practice, I would agree that if there was a peace agreement in place then this would be ideal, but there may be practical issues. For countries bordering Israel like Jordan/Egypt which have made peace agreements this is effectively the case so I don't see any reasons Israel would reject this outright. Keep in mind that since there is no peace agreement with Palestine creating established borders something like this isn't currently feasible.
> There is no Palestinian rule. They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis.
You're making it as if it's all or nothing, when in reality there's a lot more nuance here.
> They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms.
Their own leaders often deny them those freedoms, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They also don't have clearly defined borders in general which is a big part of the problem(i.e. the lack of a peace agreement creating mutually recognized borders).
> Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
There are levels of rule below that of having a fully independent state.
> Surprise surprise, israel is even less supportive, and "they did it first" isn't an excuse to deny a person or country their rights.
Palestinians that are Israeli citizens have effectively all those rights. Israel doesn't recognize Palestine as a state due to a lack of a peace agreement, an actual peace agreement establishing a Palestinian state must be negotiated, unilateral disengagement(like Israel tried with Gaza in the past) does not work, likewise unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will also be unlikely to work, both sides must agree on terms to end the conflict.
> Luckily, the relevant authorities (international courts, scholarly institutions) seem pretty confident that israeli electees are war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders, so you don't need to be.
Unfortunately many of these groups(UN and UN affiliated organizations especially) have a major credibility problem, from their outright lies[0][1], to poorly supported reports which cherry-pick data to create a false narrative[2] one certainly can't blindly trust the UN to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias against Israel[3].
> I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have different citizenship in general will have different rights.
> If they don't have the same citizenship then they wouldn't have the same rights because they would live under different governments.
Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect.
> You're making it as if it's all or nothing, when in reality there's a lot more nuance here.
You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule.
> Their own leaders often deny them those freedoms, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions.
> Israel doesn't recognize Palestine as a state
What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state. Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land.
> Unfortunately many of these groups(UN and UN affiliated organizations especially) have a major credibility problem
Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem. Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies. One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel.
> Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect.
That's very non-specific.
> You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule.
In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions(there may have been a blockade but that was imposed by multiple countries, both Egypt and Israel). The PA has some degree of authority the West Bank below that of "complete control". There is no universally agreed upon definition for what territory is Palestine since there is no peace treaty between the involved parties. Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs. So there it's not remotely clear what "rule over transit within Palestine" would actually mean.
> rule over journalism
Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control.
> Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule.
You seem to be describing the ongoing war, and without a peace agreement that's generally just how wars work. In WW2 Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were heavily blockaded by the allies until they surrendered and stopped fighting.
> It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions.
Their own governments, ones they elected(Hamas) and would likely elect again(Hamas) if given the vote are some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world, Palestinians will never be free when the likes of Hamas(and to some degree the PA) are their leaders even if the occupation by Israel ended completely.
> What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state.
Palestine is not recognized as a state by the UN(since the US has veto power over recognition effectively).
> Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land.
The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state, the UN is not going to stop this conflict, in this region ending conflicts basically always happens via bilateral negotiations and peace deals(of which Israel has had many successful of course historically). Israel does not attack countries it has peace deals with.
> Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem.
Are you referring to the UN official that admitted he outright lied about starvation risks?
> Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies.
Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from. The "relevant" international bodies have basically no credibility when it comes to these issues, especially the UN, one reason is that they themselves have been directly involved in perpetuating the conflict(i.e. via UNRWA policies).
> One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel.
You can go through the sources in these reports and validate the facts yourself, on the other hand the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions and often ignores counterfactual data and cherry-picks data to fit a certain narrative.
Is it? I'm afraid I disagree, but then again, I've read the documents I mentioned. Feel free to ask for help if you want more clarity!
> In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions
Unfortunately this is not true, because it does not meet the definition (even you acknowledge "exceptions" in your post, and 1 exception disproves the rule). You also keep switching "Gaza" out for "Palestine", which is the country we're discussing.
So, please reassess now that you know we're taking about Palestine, not "Gaza" or any other geographical sub-portions of it: What is the "limited" list of things which Palestinians currently exercise rule over in all of Palestine (rule meaning total control, without israel believing it has the right to interfere with violent veto power)?
> Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs
israel thinks the entirely of Palestine should be israel's, and is effecting this goal via genocide. So, even worse than what you claimed. Let that sink in.
> some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world
And yet, in Palestine, the genocidal israeli occupiers are even worse than that. Let that sink in.
> Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control
And yet, in Palestine, israel does that even more, and also israel's latest conflict has killed journalists at a greater rate than any other in history. Let that sink in.
> The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state
The international community (which comprises the UN) recognizes Palestine. Most countries in the world do. israel is merely an exception.
> outright lied about starvation
Are you referring to israel here, who has repeatedly outright lied about starvation, as judged by the authorities on starvation?
> Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from
Likewise, lies are lies, wherever they come from. When it comes to unconvincing israeli claims that any and every critic in the world is biased against them, we certainly aren't referring to facts or truth.
> the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions
israel tends to attack and murder the people who validate such things that israel lies about, so they have lost the benefit of the doubt regarding such things. This is known in courts as an "adverse inference". If they wish to have more than zero credibility here, they can allow independent investigators into Palestine (all of it), without murdering them, to the satisfaction of the relevant investigatory bodies.
As far as bias goes: If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court. Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
> Is it? I'm afraid I disagree, but then again, I've read the documents I mentioned. Feel free to ask for help if you want more clarity!
You seem to just want to use vague terms and play word games.
> Unfortunately this is not true, because it does not meet the definition (even you acknowledge "exceptions" in your post, and 1 exception disproves the rule). You also keep switching "Gaza" out for "Palestine", which is the country we're discussing.
So you're saying Egypt and Israel were the rulers of Gaza...I mean if you really want to use ridiculously confusing definitions go ahead, but that's not particularly helpful.
> israel thinks the entirely of Palestine should be israel's
Then why did they leave Gaza in 2005?
> is effecting this goal via genocide
You have to really ignore the facts to make that claim, exactly like many UN officials do.
> And yet, in Palestine, israel does that even more, and also israel's latest conflict has killed journalists at a greater rate than any other in history. Let that sink in.
What people call journalists in Palestine often includes individuals holding actual hostages[0] and others that are part of Hamas, so those claims are quite problematic in general.
> When it comes to unconvincing israeli claims that any and every critic in the world is biased against them, we certainly aren't referring to facts or truth.
There are plenty that disagree with the claims, either way UN officials showing their bias isn't anything new and certainly didn't start with this conflict.
> If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court.
There are cases in progress with the ICJ, Israel isn't the one making the claim of genocide, they are defending against a claim, the burden of proof is on the parties making the claims, and they have so far failed to provide sufficient evidence to back their claims.
> claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
The burden of proof is on those that make the claims against Israel, and the UN has a way bigger credibility issue than Israel does when it comes to this conflict.
> You seem to just want to use vague terms and play word games.
If you don't seek clarity, it's totally ok for you to not ask. No pressure.
> So you're saying Egypt and Israel were the rulers of Gaza
Not sure where you got that from, it makes no sense. I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, whereas it's been reiterated thousands of times, via violence, that israel rules over Palestine with an iron, exploding fist.
> There are plenty that disagree with the claims
There are plenty that disagree with those that disagree with the claims. There are also plenty who disagree with the earth being round. That very loud people in the extreme minority disagree with something is not really evidence of anything.
> You have to really ignore the facts to make that claim, exactly like many UN officials do.
More accurately, one would really have to ignore facts to make the above quoted claim, like many supporters of the israeli genocide of Palestinians do.
> What people call journalists in Palestine often includes individuals holding actual hostages[0] and others that are part of Hamas, so those claims are quite problematic in general.
This is a claim often repeated by supporters of the israeli genocide of Palestinians, but unfortunately they never provide evidence of this "often" being the case. That said, the number of people who are both journalists and active combatants could theoretically be as high as 99%, and it still wouldn't justify israel restricting, much less killing, the remaining 1%.
> UN officials showing their bias
If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court. Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
> they have so far failed to provide sufficient evidence to back their claims.
Correction here: those claiming israel is perpetrating a genocide in general have provided sufficient evidence to back their claims. Regarding the formal court case around it: the plaintiffs have also provided sufficient evidence to back their claims.
> UN has a way bigger credibility issue than Israel does
You have this backwards: israel has a way bigger credibility issue than the UN (nearly 200 other nations united). So far, israel has failed to convince the world (the UN) that they have more credibility than the rest of the world put together.
> Not sure where you got that from, it makes no sense. I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, whereas it's been reiterated thousands of times, via violence, that israel rules over Palestine with an iron, exploding fist.
My point was just that there have been various levels of control/rule over Gaza over the years by different parties, with Egypt ruling over Gaza following Israeli independence until 1967, then Israel until the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, then Hamas eventually took effectively full control after short period of conflict with Fatah. I'm deliberately not using the term "Palestine" here because there is no clear definition of what "Palestine" actually means(which is a significant issue in this conflict obviously).
> That said, the number of people who are both journalists and active combatants could theoretically be as high as 99%, and it still wouldn't justify israel restricting, much less killing, the remaining 1%.
By what standards are you making this claim? The laws of war clearly allow for collateral damage.
> If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court.
Under what international procedure would Israel submit their claims of innocence of genocide for judgement? The burden of proof is on the party claiming there is genocide. This is aside from the obvious conflict of interest the UN has(as they are a party directly involved in perpetuating the conflict over the years with a clear history of double standards).
> Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
One should look at the evidence rather than blindly accepting anti-Israeli propaganda at face value.
> Correction here: those claiming israel is perpetrating a genocide in general have provided sufficient evidence to back their claims. Regarding the formal court case around it: the plaintiffs have also provided sufficient evidence to back their claims.
By what standards? There have been claims made(many of them with very obvious flaws), and there has yet to be a ruling on those claims.
> You have this backwards: israel has a way bigger credibility issue than the UN (nearly 200 other nations united). So far, israel has failed to convince the world (the UN) that they have more credibility than the rest of the world put together.
Many UN organizations like the UNHRC have been effectively run by oppressive dictatorships over the years, these are countries which no sane person can argue have any moral authority when it comes to human rights[0]. This is a common pattern at the UN[1] and is precisely why the UN has such a severe credibility problem when it comes to human rights and morality in general. People really need to understand what the UN actually is before they start claiming it as some sort of moral authority.
> always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are
Treating others as equals and co-inhabiting a space with them are quite different. Israel needs to treat Palestinians with dignity. But a lot of Palestinians (and Israelies) legitimately believe in exterminating the other. That's not a stable social base for building a state on.
The West Bank is occupied by Israel and Israel has overall control, but it is broken up into a whole bunch of tiny administrative regions, some of which are administered by the PA and some of which are administered directly by Israel.
No, it is uncommon to attribute to Russia the set of racist stereotypes that relate to Jews.
For example, I never saw an opinion that thinks that Russia control the media or world finance, while the above is attributed to jews since before nazis.
In the above example, it is very common for people to have a paranoid obsession with looking for Jews/Israel as an explanation for any news, and that is also a centuries old pastime
Electric does make it pretty important that the software is unusually good for a car, though, because the software has to compensate for non-ubiquitous charging infra. Tesla does this very well. There are some quirks around charge scheduling and charge limiting that Tesla does really well too. It's not rocket science but software in most "current cars" is terrible.
This is currently becoming a smaller and smaller problem with charging infra growing fast.
I guess it will become an issue again when "car" becomes synonymous with "EV" and there's a sudden spike in EV registration, but who knows when that tipping point will occur.
One can disagree with Mozilla and think advertising sucks, and use tools to block it or FOSS products that don't force it on us, while also seeing how e2ee encryption bans ("chat control") and age verification rules are a restriction of both the rights of service providers and the rights of users.
Another way to put it is, just because a regulation is a restriction of the rights of a service provider does not mean it isn't also a restriction of the rights of a user.
The former does not make the latter true, but in some cases both are true.
I'd also add that if we can't stop bad laws that restrict the rights of (and piss off) both service providers and users , we have no hope of stopping similarly bad laws that only restrict the rights of users.
(Service providers, even small ones if they take the time to speak with their member of Congress, can be very credible, sympathetic, and persuasive stakeholders. When we can fight on the same side--realizing that sometimes we will fight on opposite sides--it's better for user rights that we do so. One of the tragedies of the left and parts of the right in the Trump era is that they see any regulation that hurts Big Tech as a win, even if it also hurts user rights. User rights are safer if we can distinguish between regs that hurt Big Tech and users from regs that don't hurt users.)