BraveSirZaphod @ BraveSirZaphod @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,142

Joined

2 yr. ago

More than that, I'd say it's essentially guaranteed. Polling in the aftermath of the attacks showed something like 90% of Israelis holding Netanyahu accountable for it, and his approval rating has stayed buried in the ground.

The sole promise of Likud was that they were the ones that could keep Israelis safe. That narrative very obviously doesn't fly any more.

Yep, I saw that, and Israel is being stupidly hard-headed, which is hardly unusual. I'm by no means saying that they're perfect at all, and I'd actually agree that the contextual resentment and anger that Palestinians have towards Israel is justified, even if the terrorism is not.

He also said no injustice to the Palestinians could justify the appalling attacks by Hamas

I would agree with that, and I think most people would. Again, I'm by no means saying that the IDF is remotely perfect or that they're not being too harsh in their response, but there's a meaningful difference between collateral damage in an extremely dense urban environment and storming a village to shoot every civilian you can find, up to and including children. That is something that I would say can never be justified, ever.

Again, this is not to say that the IDF shouldn't be criticized for the severity of its retaliation, just to be explicitly clear.

The US Department of State deemed that Israel was responsible for the death of the journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

In addition to the forensic and ballistic analysis, the USSC was granted full access to both Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian Authority (PA) investigations over the last several weeks. By summarizing both investigations, the USSC concluded that gunfire from IDF positions was likely responsible for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh.

So, yes, actually. Israel's ally has contradicted Israeli positions before.

They're just trying to say "I think all Israelis should be murdered" without actually having to say that out loud, since openly advocating for a second Holocaust is still out of fashion, at least for now.

If we want to talk about history, when was the last time the land immediately outside of Gaza was claimed by any Palestinian government?

Because the boundaries of the Gaza Strip were establish in 1949, so there's no functional legal difference between living there and living in Tel Aviv.

So, if you're saying that you think the murder of all Israelis is justified, which does seem to be what you're implying, kindly have the guts to at least openly say it.

I think there's a pretty key difference between expressing sympathy and support for Palestinians, which I've seen plenty of from all kinds of people - including most recently literally Obama - and looking at the murder of over a thousand civilians and saying "this is fine and justified".

I've seen little to no criticism of people who have merely expressed simple support and sympathy, and much more criticism of people doing apologia for the intentional murder of children. If that were to change, I would be greatly concerned, but that's not really what I've been seeing.

Its very nice to have a choice, but also annoying that there are so many, i’d just like one communism please or something

At some point, you have to decide if your fundamental goal is to figure out what kind of world you want to live in or if you're just bored and looking for an aesthetic to adopt.

Because it sounds like you're kind of just looking for a group of cool kids to fit yourself into, and thus it's annoying that there are so many various little factions.

These aren't mutually exclusive. It can both be true, and Russia could have intentionally boosted the story on social media in order to cause greater general distress.

You're right; we must spend all hours of all days contemplating historical injustice. No happiness allowed!

More like a cut and oxidizing apple really.

Well, I'll give it to you. This is actually a suitable post for this community.

Immigration reform requires Congressional action, and I'm sure you know the state of Congress right now. I'm gonna take a wild guess that you're on the younger side, haven't been around for many presidential elections, and didn't understand that statements made during the campaign are essentially a glorified wishlist unless they're things that fall solely under executive authority. The fact of the matter is that no President has the power the unilaterally act on immigration.

And as a fun fact, that Reagan bill from 1986 got through Congress with more Democrats voting for it than Republicans. In fact, if you only look at Republican votes in the House, the bill would have been voted down.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h872

So the real question is, if Biden had the Congress of 1986 rather than the current one that's so dysfunctional we don't even have a Speaker in the House, do you really think that nothing would be happening?

I get that politics is depressing and deeply frustrating, and that change always happens way too slowly. But if you look at it and come away thinking that there's no meaningful difference between the parties, you're simply not paying attention.

For what it's personally worth, I'm in favor of largely unrestricted immigration and have also been frustrated with a lot of Biden's actions. But I can also understand that there's a level of political reality that has to be accepted. A lot of voters want some level of stronger border control. Tariffs are essentially a handout to domestic blue collar union workers which are vital to winning a presidential elections. It's all cynical and shitty, but you either accept the reality of the situation, or you don't and enjoy the consequences of empowering people who actually only care about money and personal power.

To be a bit more explicit for you, the subject of the verb 'tried' is not 'who(m)' in this case. It's 'all'.

At least that's what their actions say

Yeah, so long as you just completely ignore their actions from two and half weeks ago. Disregarding the murder of a thousand Israeli civilians, they're not trying to kill Israeli.

If you're just going to ignore reality, I can find a better use of my time.

to make it clear to the whole world he openly endorses genocide

If that's your takeaway, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that you're not exactly engaging in any meaningful amount of good faith and moving on.

It is amusing, however, that you say the only difference between them is in narrow specific topics after you've just cherrypicked a few select specific topics. As a member of that rainbow flag myself though, that's a difference I rather appreciate.

I'd agree that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is a much more legitimate party that generally has made efforts to negotiate in good faith, and that Israel's actions there are largely indefensible.

I don't think it can really be denied that Hamas has no real interest in peace though (nor does Netanyahu, for that matter).

The "tough on Palestine" position hasn't worked, doesn't work and will never work.

I agree with this. What I think Palestinians need to accept, regardless of whatever historical justification is used, is that violent military resistance to Israel also has not and never will work. The only thing with any possible chance is both sides accepting a need to co-exist with the other, something neither side has expressed much interest in between Israeli settlements and Hamas rockets.

Sure, criticize away, and you absolutely should. It's just important to not get so carried away that you wind up contributing to an outcome that you openly know to be objectively worse at the ballot box.

Okay, so this actually has nothing to do with how YouTube "demonitizes content creators, while protecting doxxers and content thieves". It's actually just about you not wanting to pay for it.

Which is fine! But why lie to yourself about it?

Let this be a reminder to anyone who hasn't liked Biden's handling of the Gaza situation that this is the alternative.