NoneOfUrBusiness @ NoneOfUrBusiness @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

2,052

Joined

2 yr. ago

Then the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Holodomor and Cambodian genocide weren't genocides. Good to know. Neither was the American and Canadian genocide of Native Americans.

You should read the UN's definition of genocide first.

Genocide doesn't mean wiping them all out, but that aside it's so they can enforce their reign of terror in the meantime. And because they later sell these technologies as "battle-tested".

I understood it, and what I'm trying to say is: Unlike in most places, this technology isn't going to be used even ostensibly to maintain law and order; it's gonna be used for genocide. Again, think of the FBI and the Wehrmacht using the same technology. Both are bad, but one is clearly a lot worse. That's why this is cause for concern.

I mean it's also comparable to the Nazis in that the ideologies are almost exactly the same (the whole the Chosen People TM must remove the subhumans for Lebensraum rhetoric specifically is so close it's not even funny) even if the scales are different because Israel needs to do the absolute bare minimum to save face on the international stage.

I don't like the comparison to the Holocaust for the same reasons you said, but comparing Israel to Nazis has a lot of merit.

Edit: Also foreign policy tends to be low on voters' priority list, except when genocide or other large-scale crimes against humanity are involved. It's easy to forget this because Israel has controlled public perception of the conflict for a long time, but Americans have a decently long history of being very much not okay with genocide (when they're not the ones committing it). You'll see this today in progressives dropping Biden over Gaza; normally it'd be more than just progressives, but Israel has controlled public opinion for so long (and so successfully tied their existence to US Christian death cults' eschatology) that it's still only a limited segment of the total population.

It is of a lower scale than the Holocaust, because Israel is being held back by the international community. Most places in Gaza are either already in famine or will be soon at this rate. If Israel has its way the scale will match these genocides (as a proportion of the population of course). I do agree that comparisons to the Holocaust are exaggerations and therefore unproductive, but let's not forget that the real genocide is just starting.

Imagine if it was Apartheid South Africa, or Nazi Germany doing this. Do you see the problem now?

I'm a Reddit immigrant. After the API debacle I jumped ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OriginofthePalestinians

I'll just say: Progressive Israelis hate settlers. The majority (as a rule everyone who voted for Netanyahu's coalition) has no issue with them or outright supports them.

I guess the Nazis never left.

Nope. We might be too much of a rare breed here.

They're everything you said, and also freedom fighters, at least at the present stage. They have the goal of a Palestine free from Israel occupation and aggression and take real action to make that happen. That's pretty much what the bar for being a freedom fighter is, and doesn't preclude them from being bad people otherwise.

and they expressly wanted active violence to start once more.

TBF in the case of Palestine active violence is the only realistic path to peace. Not via a military victory, but to gather the international community's attention and lose Israel international support. The status quo where Israel one-sidedly blockades and airstrikes Gaza isn't a desirable situation for Palestinians, because it's become normal. It doesn't make the news, spread the Palestinian cause or threaten presidents' reelection campaigns. You'll see this in the fact that while Gaza tends to take the forefront in news coverage of the conflict, the West Bank usually takes a backseat and even now is covered as an accessory to the situation in Gaza, because the West Bank doesn't have much active violence.

What I wanna say is: They want active violence because it works. There's no path to peace without violence when the other side is a country like Israel. The IRA, ANC and Civil Rights Movement (where what pushed the CRA over the edge was riots following MLK's death), among others, have thoroughly proven this.

Okay let me correct myself: I think this is a uniquely Western problem (or maybe it's a uniquely non-Middle Eastern problem Idk), because at least in Egypt this is not a thing, and in fact religious highschools (known as Azhar highschools) are notoriously hard because they teach you everything you'd be expected to learn from a typical highchool and on top of that the classical Arabic and other knowledge necessary for the student to pursue a degree in Islamic scholarship. This issue also seems like it's tied to a uniquely Western attitude towards religion, so I'm not sure how applicable it is to Islamic schools given that Muslims have a completely different idea of religion and spirituality.

Again though, none of this should really be seen as being particularly relevant to the modern issue any more than Roman territorial claims are to the modern borders of Italy.

True enough, but it helps when even the nonsense argument is false.

The same Rashidun Caliphate that ended with Ali getting assassinated and his son abdicating after an assassination attempt? Replaced by the Umayyad caliphate that was then quickly succeeded by the second Muslim civil war? I wouldn’t characterize calphates borne of wars of conquest to be a symbol of unity rather than what they are, empires not dissimilar to the US empire you’re arguing against.

Admittedly the Rashidun Caliphates should've really gotten their stuff together when it came to succession, but these were all wars of succession, not wars of secession. The idea that the Muslim world was meant to be ruled by one Caliphate was an assumption nobody tried to challenge. That's unity. I like to compare it with the Roman empire, and I think we can agree that the Roman empire was mostly united. Anyway that unity continued until the late Abbasid reign when the Abbasid Caliphate started disintegrating, and stayed like that for a while until it got conquered by the Ottomans who held things together until WWI. The track record isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.

I just don’t see the US putting as much weight on shaping the middle east over time as oil becomes less and less relevant,

It's not just oil. I mean a lot of it is oil, but it's not just oil. The Middle East is a generally resource-rich region with a shared cultural identity and tendency towards unity (pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism are very common ideologies among Middle-Eastern people).

So I ran into this some time ago and setting aside the idea of whether these divisions did cause conflict or not, I think it's telling that only two of these don't have any sort of large-scale international influence, with one of those being the Islamic one despite being among the top in terms of people, resources and land area.

It's not just about false claims but also general bias

I'm talking about the factuality rating. I have issues with their bias system as well, but not in this case.

Edit: Good point about the white supremacy part, though I do think it's passable-ish for an opinion piece. Also I went to fact check their fact check and

“According to a police source, the investigation also shows that an IDF combat helicopter that arrived to the scene and fired at terrorists there apparently also hit some festival participants,” Haaretz states.

MBFC is just shoddy work all around, and from what I've seen leans slightly conservative and pro-Israel, if not directly then through its reliance on sources like the ADL.

They had one false claim. I mean usually you'd expect 0 but MBFC's bias is very obvious here and in other cases. It's one guy's personal project why do we take it so seriously?

BTW from MBFC

Despite the biased presentation, articles are generally well-sourced to credible media outlets.

I'm... Not a tankie. At all. You don't need to be a tankie to see that the US has been the single greatest cause of destruction in the Middle East (edit: post-colonization). You just need to know some history, or just be Middle Eastern.

As for Pakistan, which isn’t even in the Middle East:

That depends on your definition of the Middle East. Pakistan is sometimes included.

I’m not sure the US is or should be concerned with the Middle East uniting, all you have to do is look at all of recorded history in the middle east to see that’s not realistic.

What? The middle East has been united for most of its history since the Rashidun Caliphate. It was also reasonably united against the US in the 70s, causing the oil crisis. United doesn't have to mean one country.

“Hey we’re not happy with what your PM is doing and if it continues don’t expect support from us.” Is somehow the US doing regime change?

I mean look at Cuba and none other than Iran itself. "Don't expect support from us" is putting it lightly; we've what the US does to governments it doesn't like. The US put pressure on the Pakistani military to remove the democratically elected PM and install one friendly to US interests, that's two steps removed from a coup.

Then the US can just continue its imperialism and destabilization of the region. The US doesn't want the Middle Easts to unite and become a force on the international stage, so any attempt to make that happen will immediately create a new geopolitical foe. A Middle East ruled by functional governments who actually care about their people is directly opposed to US interests. The idea that if Iran just goes away the region will usher in a Pax Americana closely resembles "If oppressed group X stops resisting they'll get off lightly" and is deeply flawed for exactly the same reason; America doesn't want a Middle East capable of standing up to the US. See also: That one democratically-elected Pakistani the US just removed recently.

The US isn't opposed to Iran because Iran is ruled by bad freedom hating people (I mean it is, but this has nothing to do with that); the US considers Iran a geopolitical foe because Iran is the one country in the Middle East actually willing to stand up to the US.