> “You should compete,” I suggested.
> He smirked. “I always compete.”
Feels like a vocal jerk-off. Just tell me the details, idc how tuff the interview was.
I find it pretty distracting too.
This is fantasy fiction for VCs, founders, AI bros, and anyone else who isn't actually looking for information.
- i mean yes u cannot make money out of teenagers but damn replit's Vibe coding tool is fucking good. Better than Lovable or Bolt any day.
just to give u a perspective from a 20year old kid from a 3rd world county
But us older guys (i'm not that old, 34, but still) can easily forget how valuable and exciting it is to have tools that make the publication / deploy easy. It's cool to hear what the younger, less experienced crowd gravitates towards in the modern dev tool landscape. Thanks for sharing!
Are their customers making money?
Will they be able to build retention?
I've got this question of every platform like this - Lovable, etc.
Cursor and IDE tools and models cater to a smaller audience, but they're sticky, repeat customers, big spenders.
I don't get all these vibe coding tools when Claude is better than any of them
No need to think about how/where to deploy, cloud platforms (AWS, GCP, Azure), etc. Just vibe and deploy.
(He did end up moving off the platform once he had enough validation)
For personal projects, usually Firebase (+ occasional Cloud Run mixed in) which makes it relatively easy.
For professional projects, it's pretty easy now on AWS with their (unfortunately named) Copilot CLI [0] (highly, highly recommended).
But mostly, I keep my infra simple and bias towards modular monoliths [1] which ends up being the majority of my infra work (container packaging and deployment of the initial runtime infra).
[0] https://aws.github.io/copilot-cli/
[1] https://chrlschn.dev/blog/2024/01/a-practical-guide-to-modul...
The percentage of programmers with side projects they deploy themselves is very small. I’d guess less than 10% have a side project deployed somewhere. (And these days
Most experienced programmers in my circles have evening/weekend projects. We are notorious for hoarding unused domains for the "brilliant side project" that gets a burst of commits right after domain-renewal time
Both make it pretty dead simple to deploy. AWS Copilot being the "more powerful" of the two, but still dead simple to use compared to CDK, Cloud Formation, or writing Terraform or Pulumi scripts.
I don't have to worry about cloud providers ruining my life with updates, free cloudflare in front so I get caching.
It's not too bad but there is an initial investment
I'm really curious what this looks like in practice? Like can you just download the whole codebase, throw it against a Supabase Postgres DB, and you're off running? What about any backing services or microservices? Is it tied to any thing like lambdas etc.
replit has made it like, even a 11 year old can make something out of thin air and acutally publish it to get a link to share
Not sure why this is controversial. I know it’s an issue with Cursor as they have to limit availability of models based on region. OpenAI specifically blocks India and Pakistan for example, among a long list of other countries.
Could u share a link or something?
P.s. found nothing on a google search
How is that pragmatic? If you want to do good things, build a business and donate money or whatever. Getting into Twitter wars with internet strangers and spending on PR to tell everyone what you think about geopolitics strikes me as anything but pragmatic.
Plus social media is a uniquely deranging technology. Persona on twitter is rarely who the person is in real life.
As a powerful figure, you become a literal puppet in front of the public. Your opinions don't matter
1. A subjective amount that depends entirely on the lifestyle, burn rate and life expectancy.
Yep. Seems like he posts a bit more thoughtfully with deliberation ever since the "suing my intern over a weekend project" debacle.
Having other close friends from Jordan, it's not surprising that he's outspoken on the topic of Israeli occupation - it's very difficult to spend a significant amount of time in the affected regions and not come away with a very strong opinion.
Seems to have worked out for them, mind!
Running an IDE in a browser like that is not something I'd ever want to work with long time or experimenting on my "own" computer - maybe it's just me being weird but running the code on the metal I'm holding is much more satisfying.
I'm not sure what features / tools replit had in this regard, but I could easily see it dominating CS education and conferences as the go-to IDE. (then making the real money by monetising the students in the future, i.e. other tools you can sell - even something like replit as a cloud provider), by having features like
- templates you could share (i.e. one per lesson)
- live sessions (where the professor could log into many students replit instance and demonstrate)
- videos built into the editor / streaming / conferencing
- "homework had-in" features, automated test sharing, etc.I think that it had a big potential for that.
I do wonder how sustainable it is as a business though. I expect Replit is sending the majority of that money to the big AI labs through API costs
As soon as anything becomes serious you're going to try and take it off Replit and use something like Claude Code and AWS etc
I have it originated from a master prompt project I have architected with shadcn suggestions and how I like my app router setup.
I'm hooking this up to comet to be fully agentic with Linear tasks and human-in-the-loop approvals with up to 5 UI versions per feature. And ts contract request/responses for my nextJS api endpoints.
I also host a "LangChain" similar like tool in Azure C# minimal API in a shared replit secret. It's so nice to be able to re-use secrets for Radar, etc across all my apps.
“Terrorist sympathizer” and “successful businessperson” (or “rich person”) are completely orthogonal. Building a successful business does not necessarily change your terrorist sympathisation status. You can be a rich terrorist sympathiser.
feels like sophistry
the article connects the two, so they are not orthonogonal either:
> But even as things got noisy in public, Masad met eerie silence professionally. “My calendar was suddenly empty, because I was talking about Palestine,” he said. “Replit was not a hot company anymore. We did a layoff. And at the same time, a lot of my friends were no longer my friends. I was no longer invited to parties.”
> Potential partnerships dried up. Masad became a frequent topic in pro-Israel tech groupchats, a source said, where some investors accused him of being antisemitic.
> A Replit investor who requested anonymity to speak candidly told me Masad’s public persona has been “really challenging,” and he’s had to defend the founder in investor circles. I asked if Masad had lost business because of his views. “I’m sure the answer is yes,” the investor said.
It also fitted with some @paulg twitter stuff. He wrote a fair bit about both Gaza and Replit.
TIL. Big fair-play to him, and I'm very sincere about it, he must of have left a lot of potential money on the table from possible investors as a result of his view on the genocide in Gaza. Again, fair play to him, we need a lot more people like him in our (pretty sad) industry from this point of view.
What is obvious is that people should be outraged if a successful businessperson is actually a "terrorist sympathizer", because most people, whatever their ideology, would simply consider it to be an outrageous and ridiculous state of affairs if a successful businessperson was allowed to function unimpeded in western society and its business world if they themselves considered the businessperson to be an unapologetic "terrorist sympathizer".
The title is clearly an enagement ploy by the editor because it forces the reader to decide whether they themselves believe the founder is actually a terrorist sympathizer or not. If they don't think so, then it's outrageous that he's been libelled in a such a manner. If they think he is a terrorist sympathizer then it would be outrageous to them that he is allowed to operate unimpeded in western society and its economic realm.
That's why this comment sounds disingenously pedantic and your follow-up comment's detached tone doesn't feel sincere frankly. The article does list specific reasons why he was called a "terrorist sympathizer" and forces the reader to decide whether they themselves would consider the founder a "terrorist sympathizer" given the context in order to come to a conclusion about him in general.
They have a video of people from this group attacking police with sledgehammers. It is strange how much of this 'direction action' is harming Ukraine support and not Israel. If people wanted to support Palestine they can do it without attacking their own countries' military - which is not operating in Israel at all.
> "she was murdered by ICE"
They have a video of her being shot, pretty much needlessly. I'd say that should be manslaughter at a minimum.
Do you have the name or names of the person accused of 'attacking police with sledgehammers'?
I've heard a lot about this, but it's difficult to get to actual sources about exactly what is alleged.
Even if this did happen as you say. attachking police with sledgehammers is assault, potentially even attempted murder. There's plenty of laws for that.
It's not terrorism.
You should be less flippant.
The accused's name is Samuel Corner. He and his friends are still on trial for their actions.
Here's the bodycam footage where you see Samuel Corner attack police seargent Kate Evans with a sledgehammer while she was on the ground, fracturing her spine. Watch from 3m05s to 3m10s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw
The police seargent is now disabled:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo
> It's not terrorism.
The group's stated aim is to stop the UK or any UK companies giving Israel any military support. They target companies who they think supply Israel. They break in and smash them, and as you've hopefully just seen with your own eyes, they are not afraid to attack people with sledgehammers. They use violence to achieve their political aim. They are terrorists and belong in prison.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dzq41n4l9o
> Samuel Corner, 23, [...] Oxford University graduate from Devon [...] when asked why he struck Sgt Evans with the sledgehammer, he replied: "It was me not really knowing what I was doing
Thanks Samuel. That Oxford degree really shows, doesn't it?
Obviously "on one occasion, a person in group X did Y" is evidence for "group X does Y". If Samuel Corner attacked a police sergeant with a sledgehammer during one Palestine Action, er, action, then that's the sort of thing we expect to see more often if PA is generally in favour of attacking police with sledgehammers. (Either as a matter of explicit open policy, or as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink thing where everyone in PA knows that if they start smashing up police as well as property then their PA comrades will think better of them rather than worse.)
But it falls way short of proof. Maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Palestine Action is a terrorist organization after all; but maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because Samuel Corner is a thug or an idiot or was drunk or whatever. Or maybe Samuel Corner sledgehammered a cop because the cops were already being violent with the Palestine Action folks and he was doing his (ill-advised) best to protect the others from the police. (This, as I understand it, is his account of things.)
(An Oxford University graduate attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer. I take it you would not say that that makes the University of Oxford a terrorist organization, and you wouldn't say that even if he'd done it while attending, say, a university social function rather than while smashing up alleged military hardware. It matters how typical the action is of the organization, what the group's leadership thinks of the action, etc.)
I took a look at the video. It's not easy to tell what's going on, but it looks to me as follows. One of the PA people is on the ground, being forcibly restrained and tasered by a police officer, complaining loudly about what the police officer is doing. (It isn't obvious to me whether or not her complaints are justified[1].) There is another police officer, whom I take to be Kate Evans, nearby, kneeling on the ground and helping to restrain this PA person. Samuel Corner approaches with his sledgehammer and attacks that second police officer. I can't tell from the video exactly what he's trying to do (e.g., whether he's being as violent as possible and hoping to kill or maim, or whether he's trying to get the police officer off the other person with minimal force but all he's got is a sledgehammer).
[1] I get the impression that she feels she has the right not to suffer any pain while being forcibly restrained by police, which seems like a rather naive view of things. But I also get the impression that the police were being pretty free with their tasering. But it's hard to tell exactly what's going on, and I imagine it was even harder in real time, and I am inclined to cut both her and the police some slack on those grounds.
It's highly misleading, even though not technically false, to say that Corner attacked Kate Evans "while she was on the ground"; she certainly was on the ground in the sense that she was supported by the floor, and even in the sense that she wasn't standing up -- I think she was crouching -- but it's not like she was lying on the ground injured or inactive; she was fighting one of the other PA people, and she was "on the ground" because that PA person was (in a stronger sense) "on the ground" too.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not approve of attacking police officers with sledgehammers just because they are restraining someone you would prefer them not to be restraining, even if you think they're doing it more violently than necessary. And I have a lot of sympathy with police officers not being super-gentle when the people they're dealing with are armed with sledgehammers.
But the story here looks to me more like "there were a bunch of PA people, who had sledgehammers because they were planning to smash up military hardware; the cops arrived and wrestled and tasered them, and one of the PA people lost his temper and went for one of the cops to try to defend his friend whom he thought was being mistreated, and unfortunately he was wielding a sledgehammer at the time" than like "PA is in the business of attacking cops with sledgehammers".
None of that makes Kate Evans any less injured. But I think those two possibilities say very different things about Palestine Action. Carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash equipment is different from carrying sledgehammers because you want to smash people. Attacking police because they are a symbol of the state is different from attacking police because they are attacking your friend. One person doing something bad in the heat of the moment because he thinks his friend is being mistreated is different from an organization setting out to do that bad thing.
There are plenty of documented cases of police being violent (sometimes with deadly effect) with members of the public. Sometimes they have good justification for it, sometimes not so much. Most of us don't on those grounds call the police a terrorist organization. Those who do say things along those lines do so because they think that actually the police are systematically violent and brutal.
I think the same applies to organizations like Palestine Action. So far as I can tell, they aren't systematically violent and brutal. Mostly they smash up hardware that they think would otherwise be used to oppress Palestinians. (I am making no judgement as to whether they're right about that, which is relevant to whether they're a Good Thing or a Bad Thing but not to whether they're terrorists.) Sometimes that leads to skirmishes with the police. On one occasion so far, one of them badly injured a police officer. It's very bad that that happened, but this all seems well short of what it would take to justify calling the organization a terrorist one.
Yet none of them are being prosecuted under the terrorism act, or on any charge related to terrorism.
I think they meet the definition of "terrorists" by their stated goals and acts. But it seems there's reticence by the CPS to break out the Terrorism Act.
Palestine Action is already a proscribed group because of spraypainting RAF planes. I would say this raid seems more terroristic than base invasion, but what do I know? I'm not the Home Secretary.
It raises questions, because while the Terrorism Act is heavily criticised for being overbroad and making a number of otherwise innocuous things crimes, the CPS haven't used it against this group of people, who'd face prison just for being a member, or claiming to be a member of Palestine Action. Maybe the CPS can't reliably prove they are?
"It was me not really knowing what I was doing, I was trying to protect Leona, or Zoe. I couldn't tell who was screaming."
"My friends were in danger and they [the police] were getting quite hands-on.
"I remember just feeling like I had to help somehow. I would never think to do that to someone, I was just trying to help," he said.
I don't have any opinion on this but I think its important to have the full quote
They were petulantly resisting arrest (it looks on camera to scream instead of just complying calmly) while committing destructive/violent crimes. The police were very restrained here. There was no danger from the police, at all.
Now a police officer doing their job has a spinal injury. Palestine Action says they will not stop doing 'direct action' (sabotage, property destruction, violence). They deserve the proscription.
I quoted three separate snippets from the article that I wanted to draw attention to, and gave you the URL to read the rest yourself.
I'm of the opinion that, someone who sledgehammers an unaware opponent and claims in their defense "I was just trying to help", they are being disingenuous. Especially as one of Britain's most elite and privileged youngsters.
If you'd like to quote more of the article:
> When asked by his barrister Tom Wainwright whether he was willing to injure a person or use violence during the break-in, he replied: "No, not at all".
Read that back to yourself while watching the attack footage again. Is this credible testimony?
In the extreme, that sort of view makes it impossible to have criminal lawyers. (And not far below that extreme, we have people using all their power to go after independent judges and lawyers with every extrajudicial tool at their disposal, legal system be damned.)
The nuance between speech and action was one of the many casualties of social media. I wonder if, back in the 90's, people would get arrested for holding "FREE KEVIN MITNICK" posters, if we'd had two decades of social media before it.
Pretty solid basis for direct action.
If they provided this level of support for Russia, they'd be a new Belarus.
The mental effort a lot of people has made to pretend they aren't entirely powerless and irrelevant for stopping Israel's crimes is deeply impressive. The reality is that there's nothing the UK can do to stop Israel as long as the US is supporting them (short of going to war with both the US and Israel), but this reality is at odds with the desire to do something, so people invent and inflate leverage where there isn't any. Moreover, most of the time the very same people oppose creating more leverage for the future, as your added qualifier of "post-colonial" implies. It's depressing.
Why was her vehicle in gear, engine running?
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q7cg7o/minneapolis_ic...
How is direct action on Palestine impacting Ukraine support? (We are also not intervening in Ukraine)
Not direct intervention; but we fly sorties, provide intelligence, ship military equipment, build systems for... None of which we provide Israel for their current war.
It's just odd to me that Israel draws so much Ire when the UK deals with all sorts. There are many worse things happening that doesn't get a second of airtime.
Hahhahaha. Hahaha. Ha.
The cost of this non-intervention is now at almost $200B, is it not? I guess this money went to elves?
Multiple sources linked on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_Gaza_wa...
First it was, "The British military isn't doing anything in Gaza, anyone who says otherwise is lying."
Now it is, "The British military might be doing something in Gaza, but they're justified in doing so, and it's limited to protecting British citizens anyways."
What will it be now?
"While the Ministry of Defence (MoD) claims these flights are solely for locating Israeli hostages held by Hamas, AOAV found that the RAF conducted 24 flights in the two weeks leading up to and including the day of Israel’s deadly attack on the Nuseirat Refugee Camp on 8 June 2024, which killed 274 Palestinians and injured over 700."
https://aoav.org.uk/2025/britain-sent-over-500-spy-flights-t...
"On October 19, 2024, four days after it had been at RAF Brize Norton, the “Re’em” aircraft with registration 272 appeared directly over Gaza at 7:32 p.m. local time, less than 5km away from Beit Lahiya, a city in north Gaza. Three hours later, at 11:20 p.m., the IAF bombed a residential complex in Beit Lahiya killing at least 73 people.
On October 24, 2024, nine days after traveling to the UK, the same 272 aircraft was located at 9:30 p.m. less than 5 miles from Jabalia camp. An hour later, at 10:40 p.m., airstrikes were recorded destroying apartment blocks in Jabalia. The aircraft remained airborne patrolling the airspace near Gaza until it was recorded at 10:36 p.m. near Ashdod, a coastal city near Tel Aviv, flying towards Hatzor Airbase."
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/revealed-uk-labour-israeli-mi...
The UK might be flying spy planes outside it's airspace when it's citizens were kidnapped. That's not a "combatant". Was the UK a combatant when flying spy planes near the Ukraine border?
I think you are way off the mark based on reporting, I'm not even sure how you are coming to these stated opinions.
You mean the group that sneaked in and damaged a bunch of UK Military’s planes on a military base? Was this the action that put them into the terrorist category?
Apparently our standards have dropped so low that spray painting a couple of planes and embarrassing the UK military now puts you on par with those other organisations.
There are lots of violent criminals who harm businesses and injure, or even kill people. They should be prosecuted and imprisoned. It's not illegal to say "I support <name of criminal or criminal gang>", even if people strongly disagree with you.
However, by showing they could break into an RAF base and spraypaint the planes - that says to me that the RAF are completely shit at their job, how can they protect their base from Russians if they can't even keep out local criminals - embarrassed the Government, and the government retaliated by making it illegal to say you support them.
Say it out loud? Criminal. Wear a t-shirt? Criminal. Hold a placard? Criminal.
Might as well just hold up blank sheets of paper and wait for the police to arrest you because they know what you want to write on them, like they do in Russia.
To me, that's a free speech issue. What an affront to free speech it is. Saying you support criminal scumbags should not be a crime. You should be able to say you support a bunch of violent yahoos, to whoever will listen to you, and I should be able to laugh at you and call you a simpleton for your idiot beliefs.
Broadly speaking though, I agree. What they did was criminal damage, undoubtedly, I have no problem arresting and prosecuting people for that. But I don't believe that it's terrorism, nor that it would have been so unpopular had it not been bloody embarrassing for the armed forces. Honestly, bolt cutters and some paint should not be grounding some of your air defence.
> Giving evidence earlier, he said the group's only intention was to "break in, cause as much damage to the factory as possible, destroy weapons and prevent the factory from reopening".
I count "causing as much damage as possible" to be violent.
While I think graffiti taggers "damage property" but are non-violent. But in many places, rival gangs blow up/set alight/demolish their rivals' homes/businesses/vehicles, etc. That counts as pretty strong violence to me, even if no people are injured.
Anyway, talking of people being injured, watch a member of Palestine Action (Samuel Corner, 23, Oxford University graduate) drive a sledgehammer into a police seargent while she's trying to arrest his comrade:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo
Full video, sledgehammer attack at 3m05s to 3m10s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw
I'd designate them as a terrorist group for destroying factories, not so much for spraypainting planes. But I'd still support your right to say you support them, even though I'd disagree.
That is just not what the word violent means (unless used figuratively but I don't think that's what you mean). It means hurting, or attempting to hurt, a person (or maybe an animal). Setting fire or blowing up a home which might have people still in it is certainly violent, but destroying property for the sake or property destruction is not.
Of course, deliberately attacking someone with a sledgehammer certainly is.
If I intentionally wreck your home, like I properly ransack the place, smash it all up, I'd say I had been violent to you. Wouldn't you? You wouldn't walk in to find your home and your life ruined and say "oh it's just property damage", would you?
If my nation was at war with yours, and we dropped a bomb on your weapons factory, would you count that as violent, or non-violent?
(I would say you'd been violent to me if you'd slapped me in the face. I would rather be slapped in the face than have my house ransacked and smashed up. Some not-violent things are worse than some violent things.)
If you dropped a bomb on a weapons factory that had, or plausibly could have had, people in it then that would unquestionably be an act of violence. If you somehow knew that there was nothing there but hardware then I wouldn't call it an act of violence.
(In practice, I'm pretty sure that when you drop a bomb you scarcely ever know that you're not going to injure or kill anyone.)
I'm not claiming that this is the only way, or the only proper way, to use the word "violence". But, so far as I can tell from introspection, it is how I would use it.
There are contexts in which I would use the word "violence" to include destruction that only affects things and not people. But they'd be contexts that already make it clear that it's things and not people being affected. E.g., "We smashed up that misbehaving printer with great violence, and very satisfying it was too".
There's certainly implied violence. Like, if you done that once, maybe you'll be back tomorrow when I happen to be in, and actually be violent to me. And even if that weren't the case, I'd still obviously be very distressed about the situation.
But, having said all that, no I wouldn't say you had been violent, if you hadn't actually tried to hurt anyone.
If you dropped a bomb on an abandoned or fully automated factory, that you could be 100% sure doesn't have any people in it - then I still wouldn't count that as "violent" (except maybe figuratively), no matter how destructive.
Sure I destroyed their car and they weren't able to go to work and got fired, but I didn't physically attack them so no harm done.
> A police sergeant was left unable to drive, shower or dress herself after a Palestine Action activist allegedly hit her with a sledgehammer during a break-in at an Israeli defence firm's UK site, a trial has heard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo
Of course, one violent member does not make an organisation into a terrorist organisation. But, just as a matter of fact, there has been some actual violence against a person.
Roughly 75% of Palestinians support terrorism (the number changes with every survey but it's consistently over 50%).
The lady in Minneapolis was using her car as a weapon to impede law enforcement operations. That's not really terrorism; insurrection would be a more accurate description. But she certainly wasn't a good person deserving of any sympathy.
A hysterical take like this isn't really credible. "Obstruction", sure, but calling a stopped vehicle a "weapon" because it's slightly in the way defies the English language to the point where you damage your own credibility.
It would be equivalent to call this comment a "weapon" I'm using to impede you announcing your opinion unopposed.
She's absolutely deserving of sympathy; she was killed unjustly. We don't have a law on the books allowing capital punishment for parking a vehicle somewhere law enforcement finds it inconvenient. Just because you happen not to agree with her actions at the time, illegal or no, doesn't imply "and therefore she deserved death". I suggest you consider the consequences to your own self of people applying your own logic to you, and how long you would last if this was the general state of affairs.
[1] https://lamag.com/news/cox-family-heir-james-fergie-chambers...
Oh, and don’t come crying when the same authoritarian laws put in place for Palestine Action are used to label your cause as terrorism to quash dissent.
https://news.sky.com/story/bodycam-footage-of-alleged-sledge...
But it is good to know that criminal assault is now equivalent to terrorism.
2) So arms manufacturers participating in a war (at best!) are now equivalent to.. gay establishments? I suggest thinking through your examples before sharing them :)
This sentence would be better without the scare quotes. Something like "calling out those in tech who support what he views as a genocide."
Scare quotes don’t mean that it’s not true.
1. Ukraine’s media restrictions are virtually non-existent when compared to those enforced by the Israelis in Gaza, including the intentional bombing of media offices. Keep in mind that Hamas has repeatedly called upon Israel to allow foreign press and NGOs to visit and see what’s happening on the ground.
2. The Ukraine war is a conventional war between sovereign nations with standing militaries with equivalent capabilities (air force, anti-air defenses, armored vehicles, bomb shelters, etc). The Gaza genocide is an onslaught by a sovereign nation with a well equipped military against a militant group in a dense urban area. Leveling entire city blocks when fighting against an opponent that has no air force or anti-air capabilities is not only unimpressive, but also breaks the principle of proportionality.
2. You're making a bunch of separate accusations without connecting them to the topic at hand, which was press restrictions.
Let me reiterate: Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a sovereign military that has the ability to enforce restrictions within its own territory.
To bring your bad analogy more in line with reality on the ground, imagine if Ukraine was still part of/occupied by the USSR/Russia, and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory during a Ukrainian insurgency. However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.
> The only major difference is that Ukraine is >1000x larger, and has safe areas far from any fighting where such press restrictions aren't needed.
But Israel never allowed press into the strip, even during “ceasefire” periods - like right now! This implies that Israel is not somehow paternalistically concerned for press safety; it simply wants a media blackout.
So no, this “major difference” is irrelevant when comparing restrictions between the two conflicts.
> and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory
Your analogy isn't very different from reality. Russia does enforce press restrictions near military assets, including in occupied parts of Ukraine.
> However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.
That would seem very unfair, if Russia did it just because they're mean and not because this hypothetical Ukraine had launched tens of thousands of rockets at them. But I'm not sure what it has to do with press restrictions.
> even during “ceasefire” periods
The ceasefire was pretty much dead once Hamas attacked IDF soldiers in Rafah. Now it's just a lower-intensity conflict. Still not a great idea to have random journalists waltzing around and tweeting photos of military assets.
> it simply wants a media blackout
This is a funny explanation because there are millions of cameras in Gaza anyway, and this is the second most covered conflict (by metrics like article count) in all of human history. Not much of a "blackout" at all.
On one side, two sovereign nations setting press restrictions in areas they control. Standard stuff.
On the other side, a genocidal state blockading a tiny strip of land for 20 years waging a campaign that has killed & maimed so many children that we have lost count unilaterally enforcing a total international media blackout. Also standard stuff.
Silly me, how could I even argue about this? It’s just so damn obvious! Sometimes, arguing with random anons on HN pays off :)
> your good faith arguments have convinced me!
> Silly me, how could I even argue about this? It’s just so damn obvious!
> That would seem very unfair, if Russia did it just because they're mean
> Still not a great idea to have random journalists waltzing around and tweeting photos of military assets.
> This is a funny explanation
Hamas casualties make up only a portion of palestinian casualties; palestinian casualties make up only a portion of excess deaths; excess deaths make up only a portion of total deaths.
It’s not clear that Hamas limits their counts to excess deaths. Even if they intended to, a lot of it is based on a web form, with not much validation besides basic checks that the person exists etc.
As with pretty much any conflict, there's a ton of uncertainly, and people shouldn't be recklessly speculating based on things like WhatsApp chats. Responsible casualty estimates would look more like Ukraine, where for example Zelenskyy said "tens of thousands" (one significant digit) were killed in Mariupol.
There is no census scheduled for 2027. Gaza (much like Israel) does not conduct full censuses on a regular schedule. Neither Gaza nor Israel have scheduled their next full census at this time. The most recent census for Gaza was 2017 (for comparison Israel's most recent was 2008). All population numbers of relevance are determined by statistical methods. For large numbers, this is perfectly adequate.
> As with pretty much any conflict, there's a ton of uncertainly, and people shouldn't be recklessly speculating based on things like WhatsApp chats.
Numbers of deaths aren't being estimated from WhatApp chats. The most widely agreed upon estimates are based on morgue data, which if anything should undercount the actual death toll as plenty of bodies never make it to a morgue operated by health professionals. These health professionals are the same ones giving the birth rate estimates.
> Responsible casualty estimates would look more like Ukraine, where for example Zelenskyy said "tens of thousands" (one significant digit) were killed in Mariupol.
That's not what one significant digit means. That is an order of magnitude estimate. I believe everyone is in agreement that the death toll of the gaza war was likewise in the tens of thousands. 1 significant digit would indicate how many tens of thousands. For example, death tolls for Mariupol range from between 20,000 and 90,000. Estimates for Gaza range between 60,000 and 100,000, or roughly half the band for Mariupol. Note that Ukraine does not have access to Mariupol to investigate, as the war is still ongoing, whereas we are several months past the ceasefire in Gaza. Based on pre-war numbers, natural deaths unrelated to the conflict should be a rounding error at this resolution.
Certainly the claim that the population increase is proof of anything is absurd.
2027 is the expectation, since it's supposed to be at least every ten years.
> Numbers of deaths aren't being estimated from WhatApp chats.
Unfortunately they are. [1] was based on messages in "X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and Telegram". An example of content they scraped is [2], but they also included non-public chats in WhatsApp etc.
> The most widely agreed upon estimates are based on morgue data, which if anything should undercount the actual death toll as plenty of bodies never make it to a morgue operated by health professionals.
This isn't the case even for GHM's official counts. Anyone can report a Gazan "martyr" or missing person on a web form right here [3]. Those get included in GHM's counts, if they pass basic checks like the existence of that name and ID.
> That's not what one significant digit means.
I think the concept still applies, though I should have said zero significant digits, since "tens of thousands" implies an exponent but zero digits of the mantissa. But my point is that responsible estimates involve acknowledgement of uncertainty.
> I believe everyone is in agreement that the death toll of the gaza war was likewise in the tens of thousands.
Most of Israel's critics are not satisfied with Hamas' ~70k casualty figure, and seek out higher estimates like the aforementioned one that used WhatsApp chats. For example, a HNer yesterday wrote "They've killed people in the hundreds of thousands in Gaza now."
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
>the casualty count that Hamas claims
The Gaza Health Ministry's count is widely regarded as an underestimate, but mostly by people who don't refer to it with a dogwhistling caveat.
50,000 births by july of 2024 (starting with october 7th 2023) [2]
you can sum and extrapolate the numbers. you can probably find more numbers about births
[1] https://www.savethechildren.net/news/about-130-children-born...
[2] https://www.savethechildren.net/news/women-self-inducing-lab...
You mean Hamas’ estimate? Why do you think Hamas would underestimate their death toll?
And yes, it has.
More plainly on my part, though I'm worried sounds like berating when the comments are viewed consecutively: what does that have to do with the article we are discussing?
No matter what the political views, running into "real" money radicalizes most people and gives them the impression that they reached a superior evolutionary stage that uniquely entitles them... no, demands from them that they bend society and human civilization to their will, reshape it in their image, make it better because they are better. A sort of messianic complex.
This is the famous horseshoe paradox that says extremes are closer to each other than to the center. They might look completely different in their views but in reality they're back to back in the same place. 2 sides of the same coin. Different imprint, same value.
Compared to when? How many times in history has wealth been less concentrated?
As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants). The mid-20th century was an era of mass prosperity in the US and parts of Europe, but it was an anomalous few decades, not the norm.
But to those living and remembering that era - it was the norm that they (we) compare with, so it is the reference that matters.
That is what has changed.
Mostly all of them! There have been periods where inequality dropped, but mostly it's been rising since at least the 1300s. I'm on mobile and can't link research, but there are a few papers that investigate this.
> As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants).
And yet it was less unequal than now, an era where we've managed to use technology to concentrate wealth at an unprecedented scale. No longer is the richest person you know the king who collects your taxes next door, now it's a SV trillionaire on the other side of the world.
If you want to learn more you could do worse than follow Zachary Foster's lectures for the Rutgers Center:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zachary+foster+...
The podcast The Empire Never Ended has recently finished a rather good series on Meir Kahane, one of the most important influences on contemporary zionism:
And sure, most Zionists are not Jews because the Jewish population is too tiny to be a majority in almost any political category. Similarly most people who support Somaliland independence are not Somalilanders, but probably Indians or Chinese or something.
So you agree that zionism is a movement mainly consisting of christians, you're just not aware that both christian and jewish zionists prefer to paint the movement as a jewish underdog and distract from things like the nukes and nuke carrying backers and the genocide and so on.
Yes. And one side of the coin supports and justifies colonialism, apartheid and even genocide; the other side fights against it.
apartheid /ə-pärt′hīt″, -hāt″/ noun
- An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
- A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
- The condition of being separated from others; segregation
Explain to me how this does not fit bullet point 2 and 3.
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition[1].
Unfortunately they added a limit to the number of collaborators per account and we had to stop using it.
When I pointed out that Saudi Arabia has its own abysmal human rights record, Masad drew a contrast.
“I just think about how Replit is going to be used. Like, Israel is actively committing genocide and ethnic cleansing, and if you sell to the government there, it’s possible that they’re going to use it for that,” he said, pointing to the country’s use of Microsoft cloud services to track Palestinians’ phone calls. (After an investigation by The Guardian, Microsoft said it disabled the services that made the tracking possible in September."
(come on, it's just a joke. we're still allowed to laugh at jokes, right?)
Is Saudi Arabia a human rights violator? Yeah and so is a bunch of western governments. But no modern government comes close to the abuses of the Israeli government and Israeli military. This is the view of the free people of this world.
Not only there is not a good argument for considering 1948 war a genocide on Palestinians but there is a much stronger argument Arabs have tried to genocide Jews (especially to those who think who think there was a genocide in Gaza because of starvation as a weapon of war + intent):
1. In 1948 Arab forces besieged Jerusalem and they were starting to run out of food.
2. Azzam Pasha, General Secretary of the Arab League, famously threatened "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre", Fawzi al-Qawuqji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army said that "we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish.". Hell, several have even extended the threats to not just the Jews of Mandatory Palestine, but to Jews of the Arab world as a whole, such as Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Said("if a satisfactory solution of the Palestine case was not reached, severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.") or the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal("the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state." ). As Matiel Mughannam, head of the Arab Women's Organization in Palestine put it in an interview with Nadia Lourie in January 1948, "The UN decision has united all Arabs, as they have never been united before, not even against the Crusaders.... [A Jewish state] has no chance to survive now that the `holy war' has been declared. All the Jews will eventually be massacred. " (See Benny Morris' 1948 for sources on all of these)
not to refute the difference in extent but this is somewhat notable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahyan_airstrike
Gaza is a welcome aberration.
The only interesting bit is how so many investors were unable to see through the obvious act and also failed to do the due diligence which is the One Job of VC firms (i.e., if I'm an investor, I'm trusting the VC to do real due diligence, otherwise why wouldn't I just invest directly in the companies).
Elons politics are similar to Trumps, and Trump isn’t hurting.
Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?
Notice that we have a holiday for MLK, and Indians have a holiday to celebrate Gandhi. Something deep inside all of us knows that pacifism is “correct”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
Palestinians have every right to resist occupation.
Genuinely curious what you think would have happened if all the Islamic countries would not have attacked Israel. Would there be a peaceful Palestinian country? Guess we'll never know....
But that's all history. Your "occupation resistors" decided to rampage through towns and a music festival and massacre everyone they met. And somehow you seem okay with that.
Yes, the Nakba is ongoing.
It is a natural human tendency to desire that the people who inflict pain upon others to also feel pain inflicted upon them. This has been the human condition since ancient times, and yet the most revered figures in human history have been the pacifists who consistently advocate against violence (e.g. Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, MLK, etc).
The headline frames this as a paradox, as if these two things are incompatible. But they aren't mutually exclusive, he can be both.
I tried their AI coding feature a few months back, and it was quite bad, but it was interesting to watch it iterate.
So they caught up with Replit there, but AI wise replit didn't catch up with them. Sure it is interesting to watch it iterate, but that is also interesting for all the others as they do that too, just better.
I cannot see why one would use replit over the rest at this point but obviously that can change if it does get significantly better.
Like the other comment here: I just have much better outcomes with the same prompts with other tools. That is all I meant to say.
Unfortunately their tooling locks me out from doing that and I wouldn't get help from their team after asking twice and getting moved to several different support members of their team. They just ghosted me and so I left and took my business elsewhere. Doesn't seem like it was made for advanced users.
Unfortunate.
Of course, smartphones' cameras are so good and accessible, but not anyone who became a professional photographer?
And of course, isn't software engineering far beyond than simply writing code in any form - whether in English or in symbols?
The problem is, when there are no trainee and junior positions (and, increasingly, intermediate) being filled any more... there is no way for people to rise to senior levels. And that is going to screw up many industries hard.
Now there’s one or two guys out there with a total station and/or drone. You’ve gone from 10 techs/junior positions per surveyor to 1. The average surveyor is something like 60 years old and has no successor lined up.
engineering: implementing an 8088 emulator
science: discovering a way to make an 8088 emulator using quantum computing
Software engineering is systems and measurement.
Capacity planning, growth rates, algorithmic complexity (typically not to the point of designing new fundamental algorithms), durability, DR, eventual consistency, race conditions, schema design, systems architecture, instrumentation, statistics, sampling, more measurement, tech debt maintenance and pragmatism, online migrations, designing for five nines uptime ...
Programming is turning requirements into code with or without respect to these higher level criteria. The implementation detail.
"Engineering would be programming, but well" fits :)
Not sure what about this is contrarian.
But you can tell it’s all motivated reasoning. Standing with your tribe. It’s not much of a matter of honour. It’s just flashing your banners.
In the end, they are wealthy, but they are just people. And they have all these things and why do I really care what Ja Rule has to say about the new cyclone.
Yes, it would be dishonorable to be mercenary, but being a tribalist is merely the default position. We’re all so at some scale.
Let's try Elon Musk then: "He was called a 'fascist'. Now, his tech company is valued $1.5T"
This is the way, right?
I guess it means almost as little as "fascist" then.
Which I guess means almost as little as "antisemite" then.
I suspect most people that spend their time online ranting out 'zionists' (meaning 98% of Jews) haven't bothered to read any Herzl.
And Jews can't occupy their own homeland.
Maybe you meant decolonisation?
Whenever I read about that or the disasters that ensued in the following centuries I always spend a day depressed.
Grim.
Arab were the only folks who accepted Jews in the first place as they sought refuge from Nazi Europe
You can also look up arab violence and laws against Jews at any time you like. When the belief system mentions fighting Jews at the end of time when the trees will reveal them (except the evil Jew loving tree, yes really) you tend to act on those beliefs.
In regard to religion itself, like the other post said, he couldn't really care less and even advocated for Jews to convert to Christianity at a time, seeing it as another solution to the discrimination they're facing: "I see myself as an average modern Jew and I'm not afraid from the idea of a formal conversion to Christianity. I have a son, and I'd prefer converting today and not tomorrow so that his membership will start earlier and I can save him from the troubles and discrimination he'll face as a Jew".
My point is that the idea that Jews need a homeland was prior to the idea of the exact location it should take place in. If you bundle history, culture, belief and a like into the word "religion", then sure, we can say that the later decision of the exact location was based on religion. For us non-religious Jews that sounds awkward: we feel connected to the place because of our culture, not because of our non-existing religious feelings - but that's just semantics.
I already explained why your first "quote" is false: Hertzel didn't think Jews should move to Israel because it was promised to them.
The second one is also completely wrong: He never called for expelling the native population, and he actually advocated for close and good contacts with them and the surrounding countries.
It's funny how people associate their views with humanism: they are simply extremely religious and on this specific question, the current result of their extreme beliefs happen to align with yours.
The push for a Zionist state started and accelerated in the 1920s to the end of the 1930s. Most of the Jews that moved from Europe to Palestine, which was part of modern day Israel, were by the Zionists. Reason is because the only jobs at the time were farming so people would have to give up their current triad.
Number of these individuals actually supported fascism. Even after WWII the mind set was not that fascism was bad but poorly implemented. That mind set was shared by a number of Germans and Jews that moved to Palestine before Israel became a state.
It was not until the late 1960s that younger culture started to shift that mind set to fascism is bad.
If you think I am wrong about the summation of the book ... read it.
[0] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300253375/culture-in-naz...
It's a hundred pages. If someone hasn't read it, or even a summary, they have little knowledge of Zionism. WW2 was far after the modern return of Jews to Israel.
I grew up in a very left leaning, pro terrorism household. I was absolutely wrong about what Zionism was - not a 'God promised me this because I'm special" as I was told but rather "racism means we need a homeland let's all go back to Israel".
You might as well say that Republicans are the party that fought the Confederates and freed the slaves. It is not true today.
In the world, Jews discriminate against Jews, Christians discriminate against Christians, Muslims discriminate Muslims, ... A religious state can only have one variant of religion that is deemed the right variation even though multiple variations exist.
The closest thing to a non bigot and discriminating state is one that is not built on religion but accepts other people and allows them to exercise their variation of religion.
Earth is the home land of humans not a politically divided territory.
Jews are an ethnoreligious group. You can be an atheist and return to Israel if you want. 20% of the population is Arab, with more rights than most Arab countries, for example Arabs in Israel vote for Arab politicians that argue with other Arab politicians in the Knesset, in Arabic.
Likewise Druze are more protected in Israel than they are in the rest of the middle East.
> prevent bigotry and discrimination
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews, Asians and Europeans.
Jews have been in the Levant longer than they’ve been in Germany. (And in both for less time than they’ve been in America.)
The problem is with the notion of a homeland. Whose ancestors had what claim to something shouldn’t have bearing on how people are treated today.
Americans and Europeans have the false notion that Israeli Jews are predominantly European. They are not.
The land of Israel has been developed in such a way that it has become completely different from what it was one century ago, and there is no doubt that its previous owners could have never succeeded to do a similar development, due to a combination of lacking both the financial means and the skilled labor capabilities.
While I believe that returning the land would be unjust at this time, I also believe that the never-ending war between Israelis and their neighbors can be stopped in only 2 ways, one of which is not acceptable in the modern world and which would bring eternal shame on Israel if they would ever succeed to realize it.
The second option is for Israel to do the same that Israel has demanded and has obtained from states like Germany. This means that Israel should admit that they have occupied the land by force and they should repair this by paying a just compensation to the remaining descendants of the former inhabitants, exactly like Israel has received from countries responsible for the oppression against Jews during WWII.
The West–and America in particular–has always had a contingent that believes in drawing foreign borders through force. Particularly in the Middle East. It goes back to Sykes and Picot.
I wouldn't put a war with Israel out of the cards in my lifetime. But it’s not happening in the next two decades—our neo-imperial ambitions have found purchase closer to home.
All land, everywhere. It is NOT a natural right that anyone owns any land, nor that any countries exist. That is something everyone's ancestors fought each other for and created as a system of human society.
Of course that's written in the past tense. Facing reality rather than the fantasy presented in history books and documentaries; not only did our ancestors do that, it hasn't stopped. The bloodshed still happens today in so many places. Those we might hear about in the news, and others forgotten even in the news because it is considered normal and thus ignored.
We are not yet a species of plenty. Scarcity still exists, at the very least in the real form of land where people want to be.
You're broadly correct. But there is land that was settled within the historical record.
The Levant, obviously, is not that. It was settled prior to the historical record. It is the coast closest to our cradle of civilisation. Every human with ancestry outside Africa has some sort of claim to lineage to that land.
'within the historical record' -- No one still makes a big deal about it because it happened long enough ago.
There are places that are not widely contested today, generally most of their present borders are assumed to be generally stable. Or places with obvious natural geographic bounds and mostly internal conflict through history.
Yet at some point were those places not battled over? Even the internal conflicts count, even if as a whole the majority of a country's population of today considers themselves of one people.
The regions that remain in conflict are considered such largely because of the people who have, at some point, lived in an area long enough for it to become a notable part of their history, they have not unified as a people OF a place, but as a distinct ethnic group (be that religious or otherwise) who happened to have at some time lived in some area.
They have all been 'wronged', and all* (generally an assumption but likely to be true) have 'wronged' others (at least in 'aggressive self defense' if not in some other way) at some point.
-- put into a metaphor --
There's a public park owned by the people (earth) which has a single tree that many children have made memories with. However two or more groups of childhood friends want to continue making memories with that tree and disagree with each other and how each other interact with the tree.
What is the solution?
The evil answer from a fiction writer is to destroy the tree to remove the problem. However that does not make a right.
Using any method to give the tree to one group would be a wrong to the other groups.
The groups cannot agree on how to share, nor how to all be full adults and make memories with the tree in peaceful coexistence.
Thus, lacking an accepted answer, the problem remains unresolved.
Antarctica is Earth's southernmost and least-populated continent.
Situated almost entirely south of the Antarctic Circle and surrounded by the Southern Ocean [ and ] is the fifth-largest continent, being about 40% larger than Europe, and has an area of 14,200,000 km2 (5,500,000 sq mi).
There was no one to "take it from" and when it was divided up by "Great powers" that was more by competition (race to open routes) and some notion of good sport:
Antarctica was claimed by several states since the 16th century, culminating in a territorial competition in the first half of the 20th century when its interior was explored and the first Antarctic camps and bases were set up.
Then there are the more remote parts of Australia, nominally "taken" by the English (despite not being reached for some time) and later returned (post Mabo) to the descendants of what seems likely to be first settlers some tens of thousands of years past (the multiple waves of settlement arguments and other aspects of the History Wars in the Black Armband / Quadrant circles are looking thin in these days of genetic markers).
But that one's a complex can of worms that takes some time to unpack.
That's always been the case with nations who lost wars. Germany lost the war and lost land because of it. Should Germany take back land that was "brutally taken from them"?
Or should they maybe just accept that they shouldn't have started the war? The Germans certainly have accepted that.
Practically? In 2026? As long as you can keep it. We're back to deciding borders through force versus treaty. Which, based on the rhetoric around Gaza, is ambiguously worse.
If an aggressor is defeated, the victor gets to make demands and set terms for ending hostilities.
Okay? So are most American Jews.
Most humans can legitimately claim ancestry to the Levant. It's the coast closest to the cradle of civilization.
There is absolutely evil happening in Gaza. But pretending this is black-and-white, from an ocean away, is just alienating. It turns what should be a broad political discussion into a niche issue.
No. Most people see the nuance. There are a small number of extremists (on both sides, granted) who see this as a black-and-white issue requiring extermination.
I have Gen Z friends.
> they most definitely view Zionists as Nazi equivalent
Some of them do. They’re concentrated in a few cities. (Principally New York.)
Most of them see the back and forth and minority of extremists in each camp not representing the others. (There are more than two factions at play before we even figure on the international elements.)
> most of the non-Western world also holds
Most of the non-Western world doesn’t know what Zionism is because it’s irrelevant to them.
Ukraine was my pet war. I had to fight the tendency to reduce every geopolitical and domestic political issue through it. Because it’s not true. We aren’t abandoning Ukraine because of some Russia conspiracy, we’re abandoning it because most voters care much more about pocketbook issues.
In a diary entry from June 12, 1895, Herzl detailed his plan: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Palestinian] population across the border by denying it any employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly".
"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country"
and what happened in reality, is that with arrival of Zionists area got economically developed and it resulted in migration of 100k-400k of arabs into mandatory territory in search of employment.
in your opinion, are they also not natives and should leave now ?
or this not on tiktok yet ?
btw, here is an interesting quote from PLO commander Zuheir Mohsen (sounds palestinian enough for you ?):
"The Palestinian people does not exist … there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation [...] Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons[...] Once we have acquired all our rights in all of Palestine, we must not delay for a moment the reunification of Jordan and Palestine".
Arabs aren't native to Palestine. Jews are. They were present in Palestine before the name Palestine was ever used.
More recent example is Bari Weiss, who wrote in 2021:
"The results of this mess, as always, are especially bad for the Palestinians who live under Hamas rule. Casualty reports are hard to verify because Hamas controls the media (even the international press) inside the Gaza Strip, but it appears that more than 50 Palestinians have been killed. Some of these people are entirely innocent non-combatants, including children. This is an unspeakable tragedy. It is also one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Zionism's dream turned into the reality of self-determination."
So according to Bari Weiss, the mass slaughter of children is one of Zionism's political responsibilities of power.
That is called birthright and the way I see it, it applies to both groups. And the conflict will never be solved (without large scale genocide), if both groups largely negate the other groups rights.
But let's be clear on this: Jews that are not currently in Israel have no right to immigrate there. Jews that are in Israel have no right on any part of the land that isn't already part of Israel proper; and finally, Jews (exactly as much as Palestinians do) have a right to life, property and safety but not necessarily to their own political entity.
To me it seems close to the arguments of the jewish who see themself as native, "just" on a larger timescale. There is no easy solution that I can see. (except letting go of fanatism)
But yes, the question of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees is a tough one; but I think it's a distraction. The very minimum the international community should force Israel to, is to withdraw within the 1967 border and cease any interference with the territory and sovereignty of Palestinians. It won't happen because the goal of Israelis and Zionists everywhere is to conquer as much land as they can, and a constant state of attrition is the excuse they need to keep settling more ethnically-cleansed land.
Saying “individuals of that race are the reason racists hate all of them” is a circular explanation for racism.
Blaming individuals within the victim race for the racism is itself racist but also illogical. Someone who wasn’t already a racist wouldn’t start hating the whole group because of individuals.
Just because something's wrong, that doesn't mean it's illogical. A logical conclusion from flawed premises is still logical.
Your reason for them becoming a racist depends on them already being a racist.
Anyway, we’re going in circles here. Some people are racists because they are assholes. Many people are racist because they are trained in a culture that encourages racism against certain groups.
All racists point to the actions of individuals as “evidence” or “justification” or “cause” of their racism.
I don't think we should treat extremely powerful men as powerless victims of antisemitism who've done nothing to stoke the flames, a priori. Maybe they haven't: I certainly don't blame George Soros for the George Soros conspiracy theories (even though he partly does: I think he's wrong to blame himself any amount, since a non-Jew doing Black Wednesday or philanthropy wouldn't have emboldened the antisemites). But people in charge of states and militaries, who've been accused of war crimes by rather a lot of international justice bodies, who rarely let a chance to say "if you hate our decisions, you hate all members of this group" pass them by? They might be contributing to the bigotry. If a racist said something like that, we'd rightly condemn it as stoking the flames of hatred: why should it be any different, if someone else says it?
Homo Sapiens is only indigenous to South Africa, pedantically speaking.
Moreover, no country is perfect, and we shouldn't have double standards just for Israel. Can you identify any other Middle Eastern country that compares favorably, in terms of diversity and tolerance of all religions and ethnicities?
'I believe whites need to hold all authority in the United States, and must have a permanent demographic majority (for practical reasons, of course)'
then you might call me a white supremacist. I might reply:
'I'm not a supremacist, we must secure self-determination in order to secure the future of our people.'
You would gently remind me that this is exactly what a supremacist is.
So yes, please, no double standards. Also, the rest of the Middle East is just as bad, no arguments there, but it's beside the point.
Others have a right to live in the region too, hence proposals to share the land, such as the partition plan or the 2000 Camp David offer.
- You could say that antisemites are a cause of Zionism, but that doesn't mean they intentionally support it. Not all antisemites are of the "go back to Palestine" type.
- Just as "antisemitism" doesn't actually mean hate of Semetic people, "antizionism" doesn't actually mean opposition to Zionism. Instead it developed into a rather separate hate movement. Many antizionism ostensibly support a 2SS, which would mean they actually support rather than oppose Zionism, but are nonetheless part of the antizionism movement.
It’s not a racial issue either, because my friends who are first generation Asian, Indian, etc, would all share the same sentiment. America is the most welcoming place on Earth for immigrants who are willing to put up even the smallest effort to assimilate into the culture.
I’m not aware of anywhere with no racism. Humans are tribal and broad stereotypes are intellectually lazy but easy.
I’m not shocked. I also don’t believe that “not as bad as…” is the same as “not a real problem.”
Getting stabbed twice in the side missing a major organ/artery isn’t as bad as getting shot twice in the heart, but both are very serious and painful.
I don’t take seriously your attempt to hide it behind a supposed “observed factual reality.” This is similar to how eugenicists made up their own fake science to try to justify racism.
People are well within their rights to take xenophobic hate personally.
No they aren't. Even if you narrow it down just to white Americans, British ancestry is almost even with German and does not hold a majority once you include Irish, Italian, etc. [1]
I don't blame you for thinking they are tough, as Anglo culture and language has been unusually dominant, probably because the original 13 colonies were very Anglo and the whites that trickled in later largely assimilated. "Albion's seed" is an interesting book on this topic.
[1]: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/10/2020-census-d...
Edit: British doesn't usually denote an ethnic group so I took it to mean Anglo, but if you take it to mean Anglo+Celtic then it would indeed make a majority of whites in the US due to the very large Irish population.
That's fair but I'll also point out that pan-Germanic (including Nordic) ancestry is actually the majority in many Midwest and West coast states, while the northeast is obviously very Anglo. So you can get a very different impression depending where you spend your time.
People are multifaceted. We’re complex and sometimes irrational. I can also believe that you can share certain views yet still not be fully embraced or respected for them.
As a crude example, a Caucasian man who was born and raised in Japan thought of himself to be Japanese ideologically. Yet to the Japanese he was always an outsider - as a result, he has never felt truly at home anywhere.
Wildly inaccurate
I hope there is some humanity left in this country.
Under the Genocide Convention, genocide requires specific intent (“intent to destroy, in whole or in part”) a protected group, plus one of the listed genocidal acts (killing; causing serious harm; inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; preventing births; forcibly transferring children).
You are incorrect.
The official policy of the current government of Israel is ”the Jewish people have an exclusive right on all the land” between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.” per the coalition agreement the Likud-led government made in 2022: https://archive.is/EYGLU
This is not something the state of Israel will accept and is quite blatant in declaring that they would prefer to keep up the genocide.
Note also that Hamas never repealed their 1988 charter that called for the annihilation of Israel and contains openly antisemitic language.
For a two-state solution to work, Hamas will need to recognise Israel's right to co-exist alongside a Palestine state. And Hamas will need to stop killing innocent Israeli citizens.
"20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
Which is a very reasonable position, since it is a movement predicated on genocidal violence and the crime of apartheid. If the state of Israel were to reform or through revolution become democratic and stop its incessant aggression towards both neighbours and more distant countries, I'm sure Hamas would "recognise Israel".
But as I said, this is not an acceptable alternative to the jewish israeli mainstream, nor the zionist movement generally.
The palestinians are actually pretty good at not killing "innocent[s]". Much better than the israelis, who have made sport, commerce and dating out of humiliation and terror perpetrated against palestinians.
By the “Zionist entity,” Hamas are describing Israel.
I don’t think you’re ignorant. I think you’re wilfully turning a blind eye to just how hypocritical Hamas are in their criticism of Israel.
It wasn't Hamas that "expelled the Jews" in 2005, it was Israel that dismantled its illegal settlements.
Right, by the zionist entity Hamas is describing Israel today, but leaves it open whether it might still be a genocidal settler state in the future.
I'm not so sure Hamas criticises Israel. Do you have something in particular in mind? From my perspective they try to resist the occupation and genocidal policies. To the extent that they publish criticism it is usually aimed at international institutions and countries enabling Israel that claim to value international law and human rights but clearly do so in a severely racist and bigoted way.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a multi-party system, independent judiciary, elections and civil liberty.
If you believe otherwise, you must be knee-deep in Hamas propaganda, as many Western leftists seem to be.
> It wasn't Hamas that "expelled the Jews" in 2005, it was Israel that dismantled its illegal settlements.
So Hamas made it illegal for Jews to live in Gaza? Sounds like an apartheid state to me...
Meanwhile 21% of Israeli citizens are Arab.
See, this is what grinds my effing gears. On one hand you have a party "calling" for the "annihilation" of Israel. On the other hand, you have a part who is calling for the annihilation of palestinians AND they are ACTIVELY doing it. But no, you have to draw an equivalence somehow ...
No you don't.
You have a democratically elected government aiming for the dismantling of Hamas.
Hamas is the proscribed terror organisation that is currently leading Gaza.
Israel is not calling for the annihilation of Palestinians.
The death of Palestinians is entirely the fault of Hamas, whose blatent and attrocious terrorism led Israel with no choice other than to respond with force and defend Israeli citizens from the further attrocities that Hamas have promised.
I'll give the writer this -- they conveyed a lot of information in just one short first sentence. I read a bit farther, but it didn't tell me anything I couldn't already guess from that sentence.