Square Singer @ squaresinger @feddit.de

Posts

23

Comments

1,275

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, that's a typo. I edited it already, but there's a long standing lemmy bug that causes edits to not be propagated to all instances. So if you view it from the instance I am on, it's ok, but on other instances you still see the typo.

It was discussed below already.

The really difficult thing is that nobody who caused the situation in the first place is still alive. Almost every Israeli or Palestinian alive today was born into this inherited conflict. So everyone there can argue that they have the right to be there in their own way. And everyone there has decades of inherited conflict and trauma. This is not going to get better any time soon.

Yes, there was a tiny minority of Jews in the area during Ottoman rule. But it was fewer people than Christians there. And almost all of the Jews that moved there to found Israel had no connection to the land at all.

Nope.

Before WW1 the area was inhabited by Arabs and controlled by the Ottomans.

During WW1, the Brits promised the Arabs an independent state of Palestine, if they revolt against the Ottomans and kick them out, which they did.

The Brits, being Brits, did what Brits do and kept control over that area, now called Mandatory Palestine, and wanted to keep controlling that area "until such time as they are able to stand alone".

So this area was very much promised to the people who lived there for centuries.

At the same time, Zionist Jews wanted their own national state, and antisemites in Europe wanted the same, as long as that meant that the Jews where far away from Europe. So this unlikely alliance between Jews and Antisemites first looked at moving the Jews to Uganda, which was also controlled by the Brits. That plan fell through, and instead they promised them modern-day Israel. Of course without asking the natives who they promised the area too.

So lots of Jews moved there, which the natives didn't like. Both sides mounted a bigger insurrection, until the UN, again without asking the natives, decided to split up the area between Jews and Palestinians.

The local arab population, aided by Jordan and Egypt, started a war, that Israel won. Israel then annexed a lot of land, that, according to the UN plan was promised to the Palestinians and since then they occupied the areas and ruled with an iron fist there. For each Israeli killed, they kill 20 Palestinians. Palestinians are not allowed to leave the area and Israel randomly turns off water, electricity and food supplies, whenever they feel like it.

Claiming "it's just because Arabs don't like Israel" is pretty one-sided.

What happened there is pretty much every right-extremist-conspiracy-theorist's fever nightmare. A huge amount of foreign settlers immigrating, taking away land and supressing the local population. But instead of this being conspiracy nonsense that right-wing extremists spew to cause fear, it really happened there. And it was even much worse than the right-wing fear phantasies.

It's kinda like if the Italians showed up en masse in England, claiming that they have a right to the place, because the romans once held that area.

The Jews weren't the first people in Israel either, not even in biblical times.

True, but what often goes unreported is the massive scale at which Israel is killing Palestinians.

Check out this link for example: https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/16516/israeli-palestinian-casualties-by-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank/

Israel kills and injures roughly 20 Palestinians for each Israeli killed/injured by Palestine.

The current era of the conflict started in 2006, when the Hamas during a ceasefire stepped down from the government in favour of a less radical government to lead to a peace process. But then Israel bombed a residential building (they say by accident), killing 24 civilians including children and injuring many more.

That's when the Hamas took back the power and restarted their attacks on Israel.

It's totally true that killing civilians means you radicalize all their family and friends.

In 2006, the newly elected Hamas government actually stepped down during a negotiated cease fire and agreed to a unity government.

Then the Israelis accidentally (at least according to their statements) bombed a residential building, killing 24 civilians including children and injuring many more.

That's when the Hamas took back the government (some would point out, illegally, since there was no official election after they stepped down) and resumed the attacks on Israel.

But all in all, it's a prisoner's dilemma situation. The current situation sucks, but for both sides it would probably be worse, at least in short-term, to unilaterally reduce aggressions without the other side doing the same.

Understandably (after all this bloodshed over such a long period), there are quite a few people on both sides who will stop at nothing short but the eradication of the other side. That's not exactly a viable basis for negotiations.

And with every attack, every uprising, every repression and every civilian killed, this gets worse.

I mean, I do know the difference between Pakistani and Palestinians. It's just that I know significantly more Pakistanis than Palestinians, so my brain autocompleted wrong.

Sorry to all Palestinians/Pakistanis I might have offended here!

Thanks, sorry about that. I meant Palestinian.

Nice misunderstanding of facts here.

The church wedding for members of our church happens in a place we call temple. Temples are not our churches, they are a sacred place that only members in good standing are allowed to visit. This is not the place we meet at every week for our weekly church services.

So yeah, that parent would not be allowed to go to the temple, where the wedding ceremony happened. But that parent would not be excluded at all for the rest of the wedding and/or any other kind of communication with their child.

In the eyes of the church, someone who has been excommunicated has the exact same status as someone, who has never been part of the church.

It's quite interesting to me, how many people believe they know more about the church than members of said church, because they know someone who knows someone who said a thing.

But I guess it's not surprising, since also lots of people who never actually met a trans person strongly believe they really understand trans people and their supposed evil motivations.

It's pretty easy to explain: It's complicated.

Basically, it's a conflict that had been running for a really long time.

Before WW1, the area of Israel/Palestine was inhabited by Arabs and controlled by the Ottomans.

During WW1, the Brits promised the Arabs that they'd back an independent arab state there, if the Arabs revolted and successfully kicked out the Ottomans.

The Arabs did their part, so Britain, being as trustworthy as ever, turned around and divvied the Ottoman empire up between them, and Britain got control over what was then called Mandatory Palestine, which the Arabs saw as a betrayal. The official plan was for the Brits to rule the Mandate "until such time as they are able to stand alone".

At the same time, the Zionist Jews wanted to have a national state, where they could live without persecution, and many European nations, where antisemitism was rampant, wanted them gone from Europe, so they kinda had an agreement there. The original plan was to move them to a part of Uganda, but that fell through so Palestine was chosen.

Already long before the national state was created, lots of Jews moved there and created settlements. The Arabs there weren't exactly happy about that massive influx of settlers and the Jews also weren't happy about the natives. Each of them started an uprising over the following years, and with tensions rising, the UN drafted a partition plan.

While the opinion of the Jews over that partition plan was ambivalent, though leaning towards being happy about it, the Arabs were decidedly unhappy about it. They thought, that the UN was overstepping it's rights and that the partition plan was violating the principles of self-determinism set forth by the UN charter.

So a war broke out between the Arabs (including surrounding arab countries) and the Jews there, which resulted in a victory for the Jews. After that, the area was divided up between Jewish Israel, the west bank area controlled by Jordan and inhabited by Arabs, and the tiny area called Gaza strip, controlled by Egypt and inhabited by Palestinians.

The area the Palestinians received after the war was significantly smaller than what was outlined in the UN partition plan.

In 1967, during the six-day war, Israel captured the Gaza strip and it's been under Israeli occupation ever since. In 1993, Israel granted the Gaza strip limited self-government over the area. Basically, Gaza was allowed to self-government about matters of the populated areas, but Israel remained in control in regards to the airspace, the territorial waters and all border crossings except the one towards Egypt, which is controlled by Egypt.

In 2007, Hamas took over the government of Gaza. Most of the world classify them as a terror organisation, and they have been e.g. shooting home-build missiles into Israel and also have mounted a few small-scale insurrections and attacks against Israel.

Israel on the other hand has been casually bombarding and killing Palestinians for a very long time. Also, they let Israeli settlers illegally settle in occupied Palestinian territories, which the Palestinians are not so happy about.

From 2008 until 2020, roughly 5600 Palestinians and 250 Israelis (including many civilians on both sides) have been killed, and 115 000 Pakistanis and 5600 Israelis have been injured (source: https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/16516/israeli-palestinian-casualties-by-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank/).

The Gaza strip is pretty much an outdoor prison, with a massive population density, low life expectency and abysmal living standards. People are generally not allowed to leave from there. Israel routinely cuts water/electricity, which are both supplied by Israel in response to attacks from Palestine.

All in all, it's a right mess that's been brewing for over 100 years, with no easy solutions. By now, everyone who has been responsible for causing the original mess is dead. Of the leadership neither side is in the right, both sides are making everything worse. There is no solution in sight.

The Palestinians fight the oppression by killing civilians, the Israelis counter by killing civilians and making life even more hell for the people in the occupied territories, who in turn fight even harder and kill more civilians.

Reducing oppression is hardly possible, since that would allow the Palestinians to mount bigger attacks.

Which brings us to the current situation. Palestinians managed to break out of Gaza, at many places even destroying the perimeter fence. They then invaded some towns and a music festival in the border regions, killing a few hundred Israeli civilians and taking some more hostage. Israel countered by bombarding the Gaza strip, killing a few hundred Palestinian civilians. They also, again, cut power and electricity, and the whole western world then responded with cutting food supply.

This in turn will radicalize the Palestinians even more, who will fight harder, and who knows where it ends. Probably with the Israelis finally finding the same answer to "the Palestinian Question" that Germany found for the "Jewish Question" in the 1940s.

That's like what happens if From Software made programming challenges.

That's how this industry works ;)

"What's the worst that could happen?"

A minute later: "Oh, that."

Not if you leave the project soon enough. It's like tech debt chicken.

In a 10 year old commit from someone who's left the company 5 years ago.

That's the kind of manager, where, as a dev, you just don't report bugs you find. Zero Bugs Policy ftw!

Tbh, it's Google. I can actually believe that they stick to their promises.

7 years updates plus 2 battery swaps will take a flagship phone right to the edge of how long you'd want to use it anyway.

I think, 7 years would be amazing, but also good enough. Or to put it differently, after 7 years you get into heavy diminishing returns, since almost all users will be moving on/have severely broken their phone before that.

I've had most of my phones until they where 5-6 years old (I used to buy used, so I had older phones even though I didn't have them for quite that long). After that time, they usually fall apart anyway. (Two of my phones developed frequent random reboots around that time, one wore through the cable connecting both halves of the slider, and one killed died when I tried replacing the battery and accidentally cut through the screen cable).