Not supplying them with water and electricity would be a crime against humanity.
So they're simultaneously committing genocide, and carefully avoiding violations of international law?
Again, I'm definitely not saying Israel has done nothing wrong. I'm specifically pushing back on the casual and irresponsible claims of
genocide.
including Gaza, as much as Israel would like you to believe otherwise
In what way were Israelis occupying Gaza before the attack in October? Not with troops, right? They controlled the border pretty tightly, but it's not Gaza's only border. So...by what mechanism were they occupying it?
The settlers in the West Bank are a problem, and their relationship with the government & people of Israel is complicated and messy. To be clear: they're wrong, they're fundamentalist religious assholes, and to the extent the government supports them, the government is wrong to do so. I can totally get on board with that criticism!
I don't buy the claim that relocating people is a genocide. Many genocides do involve relocation, and relocation on it's own may well be be considered a crime against humanity (especially if there are signs that it's permanent), but it's a different crime than mass extermination.
Well, but basically what you're saying is that the genocide in Gaza exists in the hearts and minds of certain Israeli leaders. The Israelis have had the Palestinians at their mercy for decades, and they've been...supplying them with free water and power. Doesn't seem very genocidal to me.
I agree that there are some scary government figures. I wouldn't doubt that some of them have genocidal desires. But they're counterbalanced by the fact that, in the end, Israel is a liberal country. And if the standard for 'genocide' is that some government officials harbor or express the desire for genocide, then the list of countries in the Middle East that are not genocidal would be a pretty short list.
What's happening in the West Bank is wrong. You could, at a stretch, call it ethnic cleansing, but usually that term is reserved for government policy in land it controls. Extremists creeping across the border to settle and claim land, with the goal of driving the Palestinians out--to the annoyance of most of the government in power--doesn't really fit the mold. I mean, the attack on Israel was executed by the governmental body that can best be claimed to represent the Gazans, with the eventual intent of driving all Jews out of the region, per their officially stated policy. Is that therefore ethnic cleansing?
Thanks for the earnest reply. I'm not convinced, but it's refreshing not to just get downvotes and insults.
Trying to remove a people from their land Armenian genocide-style is also genocide
The thing that made the Armenian genocide a genocide is that the Turks killed somewhere between 0.6 and 1.2 million of a population of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey. The forced relocations were just an implementation detail. If forced relocation on it's own was genocide, then the Soviets would be responsible for like a dozen genocides.
There has always been a strain of Israeli politics that has been striving for "greater Israel". It's never been dominant, but I think there's a real concern that a genocide (in the traditional sense) might occur there, and I think you could claim conspiracy to commit ethnic cleansing. Israeli politics is ugly, and the fundamentalists are scary. Still...calling the current conflict a genocide is misleading and hyperbolic as hell IMHO. But that's what it's called all the time, without question, and people get furious if you ask what, specifically, they're talking about.
It reeks of propaganda. I can't take people seriously when they casually throw the term around. Talk about the terrible things that Israel actually is doing instead.
I downvoted this. If you can point to anything Israel is doing that qualifies as genocide, I'll retract my downvote. I've asked half a dozen times, here and on Reddit when people casually accuse Israel of genocide, and all I've got is basically "OMG how can you ask, don't you know they're doing bad things!"
Yes they're doing bad things. War crimes? Certainly there are plenty of examples. Bombing civilians? Absolutely. Occupying Gaza again? No question.
Genocide? WTF are you talking about? They're attempting to exterminate the Palestinians, and/or eradicating their culture? How? Where are the death camps? Where are the crematoria? Where are the videos of mass executions, or the mountains of bodies and bones? At the very least, where are the reeducation camps, where Israelis are attempting to teach Palestinian kids to speak Hebrew, as in Xinjiang?
Why not make the headline "We know this is not a war, it's a cannibalistic feast!" Or "this is a Satanic orgy!" Why pull punches? If you're making shit up, why stop an genocide?
That works if you're dominant in the market, and you have companies rushing to make software for your platform. If you're not, you end up as an also-ran platform with a handful of half-baked ports (like every "smart TV").
You can label your devices. When formatting, do mkfs.ext4 -l my-descriptive-name /dev/whatever. Now, refer to it exclusively by /dev/disk/by-label/my-descriptive-name. Much harder to mix up home and swap than sdc2 and sdc3 (or, for that matter, two UUIDs).
I'm getting there. One by one, I'm leaving the news communities, because they're so deranged.
It's frustrating, though, cuz Reddit (for better & worse) was a pretty good source of news, and a good place to discuss it. Yes there was a lot of noise, but most of the time the top few comments were worth reading. Sometimes it was legit deep analysis, sometimes insider knowledge about the politics/business/culture in question. Then below that, there was the bog-standard predictable takes and the shit-slinging.
On Lemmy, you only seem to get the latter. I guess it's just not big enough, or skews young and inexperienced.
Counterpoint: if you think the world is so terrible right now (relative to...?) that anyone pointing out anything positive must be shut down, you're probably just a toxic asshole.
Medieval chores weren't putting clothes in the washing machine or giving the bathroom a wipe, they were weaving and sewing clothes by hand and then laboriously washing them in the stream, and hauling buckets of shit. Everything was much harder and much less pleasant, and that was how you spent your 'free time'.
I've played Skyrim and Fallout 3 & 4 on Linux, and Uncharted. They worked just fine.
You need to enable Proton for all 'unsupported' titles in Steam (literally two clicks). After that...the only games I've found that don't work are down to anti-cheat. I used to occasionally have to change the Proton version for some games, but it's been a while since I had to do that.
It's nothing like gaming on Linux was 10 years ago. It's much more like gaming on Windows, the last time I did it: you occasionally find a game that needs tweaking, but 95% work flawlessly.
I think this might be giving the attackers too much credit for strategy. Don't discount the simple religious aspect: don't make the mistake of refusing to believe that devout religious people don't actually believe their own religion.
Take ISIS. A whole lot of their actions made almost no sense, from a strategic point of view: picking fights with everybody, massacring civilians instead of letting them flee, destroying ancient artifacts (instead of either preserving or selling them) if you omit the simple explanation of religion. They wanted to trigger the final, apocalyptic battle that would usher in the end of the world. They said exactly that in their social media videos, but we secular atheists (or non-devout believers) just kinda skipped over that detail.
Things aren't as clearly religious in the case of the Palestinians, but probably plays some role. Same with the Israeli Right, and the American Right with their unconditional support for Israel. We shouldn't ignore the impact of religious belief.
The initial plan wasn't to give the entire area to the Jews, it was to give some share of it (20% of the land, is the figure I heard). That area is the only place the Jews could really conceivably lay claim to. And the Arabs (specifically the Sharif of Mecca, not the people of Palestine) got huge swaths of land in exchange for their revolt against the Ottomans: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. The British made a specific exception for coastal areas, and there's debate about whether Palestine was part of that or not.
So...not that simple.
edit: Guys, downvotes for strong opinions are one thing. Debate is fine. I'm happy to reconsider in the face of mistakes. You could recast the same facts from the perspective of the average Palestinian, then or now. But downvotes for paraphrasing Wikipedia? That's the equivalent of plugging your ears and saying "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"
On the other hand, there's people who will condemn the very concept of self-driving cars because of the kind of event that happens every day with regular ol' human-piloted cars.
This is a serious incident, it should be thoroughly investigated, regulations on safety and reporting should be seriously considered. But don't strangle the baby in the crib: self-driving cars have the potential to be much safer than human-driven cars (arguably, they already are). When there's stories about Cruise taxis stopping in an intersection and the response is an overwhelming flood of "ban all self-driving cars!", it causes proponents to get overly defensive.
So they're simultaneously committing genocide, and carefully avoiding violations of international law?
Again, I'm definitely not saying Israel has done nothing wrong. I'm specifically pushing back on the casual and irresponsible claims of genocide.
In what way were Israelis occupying Gaza before the attack in October? Not with troops, right? They controlled the border pretty tightly, but it's not Gaza's only border. So...by what mechanism were they occupying it?
The settlers in the West Bank are a problem, and their relationship with the government & people of Israel is complicated and messy. To be clear: they're wrong, they're fundamentalist religious assholes, and to the extent the government supports them, the government is wrong to do so. I can totally get on board with that criticism!
I don't buy the claim that relocating people is a genocide. Many genocides do involve relocation, and relocation on it's own may well be be considered a crime against humanity (especially if there are signs that it's permanent), but it's a different crime than mass extermination.