If the Palestinians were actually interested in stopping their oppression, they would stop trying to fight an insurgency against the Israelis. As it is, they are a security threat, and for good reason.
Which oppressed peoples have come well out of surrendering to a party that has refused to give concessions?
This is classic victim blaming. It's also demonstrably false: There have been many lullls in the fighting. And yet the Israeli oppression has never stopped. If anything, Israeli has continued the war crimes of settling occupied territories, and the crimes of Apartheid by tightening the control of the borders of the occupied territories and limiting the movement of the Palestinian position, as well as ramped up racist laws such as the nationality law, and this expansion of oppression has never once stopped when resistance has abated.
This notion that you can end oppression by appeasing your oppressor is not one that has a very successful history in general, and Israel has proven time and time again over a period of decades that it definitely does not work with Israel.
And irrespective of that you fall in the typical trap of thinking you can talk about Palestinians as a unified, single entity, rather than as a mass of people with different views where even if 99.9% were to suddenly decide they trusted Israel would treat them fairly if only they stopped fighting, that would not stop the remaining 0.1%.
Notice how you yourself de facto treats Hamas as a proxy for Palestinians as a whole:
I don’t see why Israel should give quarter to Hamas now, nor should they entertain the idea that Palestinians are being sincere in co-existing with Israelis.
Consider e.g. the IRA, which saw support diminish substantially (while Hamas' support is still high), and yet still continued an insurgency in a far less oppressive situation until the UK government sat down and actually listened to their concerns and gave concessions.
Israel has created a population where sufficient numbers of people feel they have nothing to live for. There is no realistic scenario here where the insurgency ever stops unless Israel commits total genocide or seeks a negotiated settlement including giving substantial concessions irrespective of whether or not they think they can trust any of the parties.
That is not a question of whether that is fair, or reasonable, or whether it's the smart think to do for Palestinians to continue.
It is what will happen when you create a situation like this.
So you talk about what Palestinians are "actually interested in", but the Palestinian people as a whole have zero power to end this because it'd require the total agreement of each and every one of five million individuals. Israel on the other hand has the power to end this, because on their end it only requires the agreement of the state to dial back the oppression enough that support for groups like Hamas loses support, and then negotiate an end to it.
It would be so much easier if Israel just considered them as the enemy, and throw them out of the territory of Israel as they wished. It’s only right for a bunch of sore losers. Let them resist from outside the territory of Israel proper, and seek help and refuge from their Arab “allies”.
Not even Israel considers the occupied territories theirs. They are not the territory of Israel even under Israeli law. As it is what you're suggesting here would be a severe violation of international law, a crime against humanity, a violation of a number of UN decrees, and would violate Israeli law as well, as Israel's actions are only accepted by their own Supreme Court on the basis that Israel's own government have consistently insisted it's done under a doctrine of belligerent occupation: In other words, they do consider them the enemy and despite their many war crimes, not even Israel is prepared to commit the level of war crimes you suggest.
It is fairly fascinating yet also shocking how many people here argue for a maximalist position so extreme that even the far-right Israeli government rejects it as too extreme, as have every Israeli government since 1967.
Heh, yeah, that's part of what's currently keeping me on X. I use little more than a bunch of shells and Chrome, so there's not many incentives for me to switch. All of my Ruby X tools are very light on the X11 API use, so they'll eventually be fairly simple to migrate over, but the window manager vs. compositor situation is frustrating.
I'm somewhat tempted to hack together some FrankenCompositor based on wlroots that implements the bare minimum of the X11 protocol to allow an X11 window manager to to manage the windows. The X11 protocol itself is simple, and while making every WM run would be a ton of work, if you first have a Wayland compositor making it possible to run simpler WMs wouldn't actually necessarily be so bad. Not likely to happen anytime soon, though, it's not exactly necessary and I'm not that much of a masochist :)
A somewhat more sane variant might be FFI bindings for wlroots so it's possible to use it to build a compositor, but that too seems an awful lot more work than an X window manager.
Firstly, see “The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel”, David Kretzmer, Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published in the International Review of the Red Cross, 2012:
Not even the Israeli government or the Israeli Supreme Court agree with you that Israel has a legitimate claim to the territories beyond their internationally recognised borders. Maybe somebody here is talking about the entirety of Israel, but I am not, nor have I ever. If Israel were to withdraw to their borders, and Palestinian attacks still continue, then there'd be at least room for discussion of blame.
Until then, as long as Israel itself legally recognizes that it is an occupying power, there is none.
Secondly, people's experience of being oppressed does not recognize law. Irrespective of who has ownership of what, Israel is engaged in treating Gaza in particular as an Apartheid-style bantustan, and is committing crimes against humanity by doing so.
Whether or not you agree with the legal position on that, when someone places people in those conditions, then it is entirely on them when they hit back.
Blaming people for resisting gross abuse because you don't like how they do it when you've put them in a situation where they have no realistic opportunity to fight clean is victim-blaming.
Are you going to argue that it’s bad for Germans to murder Jews, but it is okay for Muslims?
Nice try. I've not argued it is okay for anyone. I've argued in some threads that unless you've provided a better alternative (and not suggested it; actually tried to make it come to pass), then like the rest of us you're not in a moral position to judge people for taking desperate steps to try to fight back.
That doesn't mean not feeling for the victims, because they had no power to end this either. It doesn't mean not thinking it's a horrible situation. It doesn't mean you can't get angry. It means resisting the urge to assign the blame to a people the vast majority of whom have been born into effective bondage under an apartheid regime for taking desperate and irrational actions to try to end a gross abuse they have no realistic power to change.
The Palestinians are probably not that bad of a people, but it doesn’t help that they keep making armed struggles for a lost cause when they can just make peace on their loss.
Telling people to just lie down and let their oppressor keep oppressing has historically never worked. Israel will never experience peace without coming to terms with that, because every new generation growing up in those conditions will learn from a young age to hate.
Do you have evidence that a huge majority wants to take over states if they are invited in, which was the claim you were making?
To quote you:
The whole reason they don’t take Palestinians in is because Palestinians try to take their country over.
It happened in Jordan, it happened in Lebanon. It will happen anywhere they are allowed to congregate.
This is full on far-right "if you let those immigrants in they'll take over" rhetoric.
EDIT: I'd also like to point out, that in fact this notion of a people coming in and trying to "take over" ironically given the context here has a long-standing history as an anti-semitic trope when used against Jewish people. It's no less of a racist trope when employed against other groups, though.
Who? Israel? No, they do not have a legal claim to the occupied areas, or they wouldn't be occupied. Both irrespective of the occupation, the crime of Apartheid is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute.
The Israeli Supreme Court has ever since 1967 consistently accepted the Israeli government's own contention that the territories are occupied, and not part of Israel proper, because if they were part of Israel, then Palestinians affected by Israeli oppression would have far stronger legal claims.
So if you want to argue that the occupied territories belong to Israel, you're arguing against the position of both Israel the state and the Israeli Supreme Court.
See "The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel", David Kretzmer, Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published in the International Review of the Red Cross, 2012
Only one party is currently illegally occupying land they have legal claim to and engaging in the crime of apartheid. Only one party is engaged in fighting against an illegal occupier. That you choose to argue in favour of the apartheid regime engaged in an illegal occupation says enough.
Nice "whatabout", but the bully here is the party that engaged in an illegal occupation, the crime of apartheid, and extensive war crimes (annexation through settlement of occupied territory) in the first place. That you try to redefine away the fact that Israel created this situation in the first place borders on apartheid-apologism. It's exactly the same tactic used by supporters of South African apartheid to dismiss the situation in South Africa whenever the ANC carried out a violent operation, and it was apologism for oppression then, and it is apologism for oppression now.
As usual the difference between the US and UK is that the US clown show is over the top and overstated all-signing-all-dancing slapstick, while the UK clown show is the kind of cringe delivered entirely deadpan that you watch through your fingers because it's too embarrassing to watch any other way, and that we will nervously laugh at the next day while wondering just how badly we'll feel the consequences.
But they both do the job of totally fucking everyone but their donors over.
They are a victim of bullying when they've been under decades of illegal occupation. Hamas is an awful organization, but it was only formed as a result of ongoing brutal oppression. When you keep punching someone in the face, sooner or later they'll start punching back, and sometimes they'll fight dirty. That doesn't make them good, but the bully is still the one who kicked things off in the first place and the one who should be first and foremost held responsible for the situation they created.
Hamas individual victims get my full sympathy; they're victims of both Hamas and Israel. Israel as a state does not - without their brutal oppression, extensive war crimes, and apartheid regime, there wouldn't be any Hamas in the first place.
It might just tempt me to ditch bspwm, or at least experiment. I use little enough of bspwm capabilities, so it might be feasible. I have also lightly toyed with the idea of writing my own, as since I don't use menu bars etc. even on my floating screen (the "menu bars" in my desktop manager are just client rendered titles) I really need very few capabilities. Basically pretty much just a placement function similar-ish to bspwm, and the ability to move and resize and float windows.
On the other hand, a truly minimalist WM is <100 lines, so I might consider writing one from scratch too (I'd need to update the Ruby X11 binding to handle StructureNotify events and add a few more calls, but that's pretty trivial). Though at this point we're quickly approaching zealotry :) It would be fun, though. Maybe when I'm done replacing the terminal fully...
I'm going to block you now, given that you choose insults as a response to pointing out Israeli war crimes and decades of human rights abuse. Talking of "unhinged", I've also reported your vile personal attack.
My first "paid" programming project (I was paid in a used 20MB harddrive, which was equivalent to quite a bit of money for me at the time):
Automate a horse-race betting "system" that it was blatantly obvious to me even at the time, at 14 or so, was total bullshit and would just lose him money. I told the guy who hired me as much. He still wanted it, and I figured since I'd warned him it was utter bunk it was his problem.
The sheer number of civilian casaulties makes all of this irrelevant, and makes you an apartheid apologist. I don't engage with supporters of apartheid regimes, so enjoy the block.
It started before that. In '98 I remember having dinner with someone who worked at Netscape before then who told me about how a co-worker had just been fired for living in the office, something they'd apparently decided to do in the first place because they already then had all of these perks designed to keep them in the office.
The Google, Apple etc. collusion certainly was a huge step up in abusive practices, though.
Having worked at, and co-founded, multiple startups over a period of 28 years: Sure. But why are you choosing that?
The reality is that the moment I started standing up to employers or investors and expecting decent standards, they folded and I was able to have a good work-life balance and get paid market rates and still get to work on cool startups and get shares.
These companies prey on most people never thinking to negotiate (and having been on the other side of the table, and tried to be decent: most people never negotiate, even though we almost always have space to do so)
Anyone who calls the IDF careful about avoiding civilian deaths is either deeply ignorant or arguing in bad faith and seeking to legitimize a highly brutally murderous apartheid regime.
Which oppressed peoples have come well out of surrendering to a party that has refused to give concessions?
This is classic victim blaming. It's also demonstrably false: There have been many lullls in the fighting. And yet the Israeli oppression has never stopped. If anything, Israeli has continued the war crimes of settling occupied territories, and the crimes of Apartheid by tightening the control of the borders of the occupied territories and limiting the movement of the Palestinian position, as well as ramped up racist laws such as the nationality law, and this expansion of oppression has never once stopped when resistance has abated.
This notion that you can end oppression by appeasing your oppressor is not one that has a very successful history in general, and Israel has proven time and time again over a period of decades that it definitely does not work with Israel.
And irrespective of that you fall in the typical trap of thinking you can talk about Palestinians as a unified, single entity, rather than as a mass of people with different views where even if 99.9% were to suddenly decide they trusted Israel would treat them fairly if only they stopped fighting, that would not stop the remaining 0.1%.
Notice how you yourself de facto treats Hamas as a proxy for Palestinians as a whole:
Consider e.g. the IRA, which saw support diminish substantially (while Hamas' support is still high), and yet still continued an insurgency in a far less oppressive situation until the UK government sat down and actually listened to their concerns and gave concessions.
Israel has created a population where sufficient numbers of people feel they have nothing to live for. There is no realistic scenario here where the insurgency ever stops unless Israel commits total genocide or seeks a negotiated settlement including giving substantial concessions irrespective of whether or not they think they can trust any of the parties.
That is not a question of whether that is fair, or reasonable, or whether it's the smart think to do for Palestinians to continue.
It is what will happen when you create a situation like this.
So you talk about what Palestinians are "actually interested in", but the Palestinian people as a whole have zero power to end this because it'd require the total agreement of each and every one of five million individuals. Israel on the other hand has the power to end this, because on their end it only requires the agreement of the state to dial back the oppression enough that support for groups like Hamas loses support, and then negotiate an end to it.
Not even Israel considers the occupied territories theirs. They are not the territory of Israel even under Israeli law. As it is what you're suggesting here would be a severe violation of international law, a crime against humanity, a violation of a number of UN decrees, and would violate Israeli law as well, as Israel's actions are only accepted by their own Supreme Court on the basis that Israel's own government have consistently insisted it's done under a doctrine of belligerent occupation: In other words, they do consider them the enemy and despite their many war crimes, not even Israel is prepared to commit the level of war crimes you suggest.
It is fairly fascinating yet also shocking how many people here argue for a maximalist position so extreme that even the far-right Israeli government rejects it as too extreme, as have every Israeli government since 1967.