CerealKiller01

CerealKiller01 , 7 days ago

During the last month there were not 1, not 10, not 100 but 807 alerts in Israel for missile attacks. Some of them weren’t fired by Hezbollah, and some might have been the same alert in different areas, but that’s still about 7 missile PER DAY even if we assume only 1 in 4 alerts was due to an attack by Hezbollah (side note: during the entire war, about 2,000 missile were launched from Lebanon to Israel, that’s an average of about 6 per day). In addition to this, there were 452 aircraft intrusion alerts. Most of these attacks are against civilian targets.

Right now, there are about 79 thousand people (around 0.8% of total population) who are still evicted for nearly a year from northern Israel.

And just in case it needs to be said - the first attack was made by Hezbollah (on Oct. 8th) and without any provocation by Israel.

Not only is this a situation no sovereign country can stand, but it’s also a violation of the Lebanon-approved UN Security Council’s resolution 1701, that was the basis for ending the 2006 Lebanon War. Hell, just having missiles in the area is by itself a violation of the resolution.

Regarding political reasoning - A war in Lebanon is actually bad for Netanyahu. His interest is a slow-burning war so he can prolong the current situation as much as possible (once the war is over, the pubic will demand an election). In fact, that’s probably the main reason you had “a missile here and a bomb there” and not an actual war.

CerealKiller01 , 6 days ago

First off, I think we should contextualize what happened - according to some news sources, the bombs were supposed to go off in the first days of an Israeli attack that would probably start an all out war (Some Hezbollah operatives became suspicious). The operation wasn’t intended to create an “escalation where Hezbollah will answer”, rather opening a full out attack against Hezbollah to force them to stop firing missiles at Israeli civilians and abide by the UN resolution.

Israel didn’t send “thousands of bombs God knows where they land”. They planted bombs in hardware that is used exclusively by Hezbollah operatives and their accomplices to evade gathering sigint. Yes, civilians got hurt. That’s the nature of war, and what makes it so horrible - people who might hold no malice nor pose any threat to the other side get hurt and die. The modern rules of warfare aren’t designed to eliminate civilian casualties, rather mainly to deter the warring parties from using civilians as a tool of war. That’s why an army can’t hide behind civilian population, but given an army that’s hiding behind civilian population, it’s acceptable for the other army to fire at them as long as they take proper measures to minimize civilian casualties (this in meant only as an example, not directly relating to Hezbollah or Hamas). If any act that results in civilian casualties is not “proper defense” I don’t think there has been a single case of “proper defense” in large scale armed conflict in modern history. People in the west might not realize it because for the last decades wars are fought away form their boarders, so it’s easier to view civilian casualties as optional.

And you know what? I’d WISH all civilian casualties in war would be confined to people who are in direct proximity to enemy personnel. If I could press a button and replace all Hezbollah attacks against civilian targets with bombs sent to IDF personnel, I’d do so in a heartbeat.

Regarding Netanyahu - right now, he’s slowly climbing in the polls. His plan is to keep his coalition from falling apart till the next election. Anything that disturbs the current situation is not in his interests (and, on the whole, the last time Netanyahu was proactive in anything other than a political capacity was about 2 decades ago). If Netanyahu wanted a war, he would have the public’s support for it months ago (in fact, the public very much supports a large scale conflict in order to stop Hezbollah targeting Israeli cities). His hand is being forced by other parties in the coalition. The obvious “culprit” are the far-right parties, but I personally think the main catalyst are the ultra-orthodox parties. This gets a bit complicated, but bear with me: The ultra-orthodox parties need to pass a law that’ll exempt their constituents from military service (long story short - they were exempt for years but due to court rulings, need a new law to keep that privilege). Galant (the minister of defense) is the one stopping the law from passing. Netanyahu was about to replace him and sell it to the public as Galant being the one who was against a war against Hezbollah. Actually, I’ll go as far as saying Israel being forced to activate the bombs prematurely, thus stopping Galant from being fired, makes a war a bit less likely (Though obviously other factors have also been put in play, so the government can’t just do a U turn).

CerealKiller01 , 6 days ago

The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas. They are two different entities, and while it doesn’t make any difference in the narrow context I’m replying to, it’s really a basic detail that anyone voicing an opinion on the matter should know.

How is this argument different than defending the use of landmines?

From the Wikipedia entry about landmines: “The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow.”

Planting bombs inside pagers specifically used by Hezbollah isn’t indiscriminate (unless by “indiscriminate” you mean “when they go off, they harm anyone in the proximity”, but going by that definition everything with an exploding charge is “indiscriminate”, yet only mines are banned). And obviously exploded bombs don’t remain dangerous and aren’t difficult to remove.

CerealKiller01 , 6 days ago

I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.

Err… what circumstances? What was the purpose of drawing a parallel between Hamas and Hezbollah? What insight was I to gain by it? Asking seriously.

And again - when you drop a bomb, you can credibly have made an attempt to ensure no one is in the vicinity who you don’t intend to bomb. (Not that israel seems to do this) - this is especially true with modern technology.

Sorry, were you making two arguments or one? You asked about the difference between landmines and what Israel did. I thought the rest of what you said was to show how planting bombs in pagers is like landmines, not a new argument. If there were two arguments, you didn’t respond to my answer regarding landmines.

I can talk about the difference, and you’ll respond with a counter argument etc. Ultimately, it’ll come down to me saying Israel is able to reasonably predict who’ll carry the explosive and you saying they can’t. The bottom line for me is this:

Some weapons have been banned from warfare while others haven’t. The banned weapons follow certain criteria for being banned. exploda-pagers don’t follow the criteria under which landmines have been banned. If you know of other weapons or tactics that are banned and are akin to exploda-pagers, we can discuss that. Otherwise, I’m left with the conclusion what Israel did falls within the bounds of a legitimate military operation. You can, of course, think differently.

CerealKiller01 , 6 days ago

You: So the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah…

Me: “The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas.”

You: “I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.”

Me: asking for clarification.

You: “you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand [the parallel?] the first two times […] Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place”

It seems you’ve mistyped, then misunderstood me when I fixed it (though I attributed it to a lack of knowledge) and now you’re insinuating I might be misunderstanding you willfully? If that’s the case, you’re making it so easy for me other people might think we’re in cahoots[1].

Anyway, Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I didn’t understand the argument. And I’m pretty sure I did understand at least one of your points. I’ve explained why the pagers aren’t like landmines and why the rational behind the treaty to ban landmines seems to agree with me. If that’s the only argument you made (“It’s been one argument the entire time”), you can simply reply to what I said instead of reframing anything.

---

[1] Speaking of other people, are people downvoting me as a dislike button, or is there a specific reason? I don’t mind the downvotes, just wondering if they’re because people don’t agree with me or because they think there’s something wrong/harmful with my messages.

CerealKiller01 , 5 days ago

I don’t care in the least if anyone thinks I’m in cahoots with anyone; it won’t change that I’m in cahoots with no one.

Sorry, I was trying to say - Please don’t imply I might be willingly misunderstanding you when you’re not communicating clearly. Even your edit is somewhat unclear, as it isn’t evident if the part before the edit is still relevant.

how absolutely heartless and tragic […]

Wait, what? The prevalent criticism against the exploding pagers (both on Lemmy and other places) is that they’re akin to mines and are essentially terrorist attacks. Both of these thing are (at least somewhat) specific and objective, and that’s where we started the conversation. Going from that to “It’s heartless”, which is a very subjective description, seems to me like moving the goalpost.

Yes, of course it’s heartless and tragic. War is heartless and tragic. How else would you describe taking a kid who was in high school a few months ago, putting a rifle in his hand and telling him “See that other kid who’s just like you? go shoot him because he happen to be living on the other side of an imaginary line”?

Saying “Well, this heartless and tragic thing is acceptable but I don’t like that heartless and tragic thing” is arbitrary unless there’s an actual criteria. Either way you’re entitled to your own opinion, it’s just that earlier I thought you have some criteria or test.

CerealKiller01 , 5 days ago

No one is forcing to to reply. I’m continuing it because to me the operation was extremely selective in which people it targets relative to modern warfare among civilian infrastructure, and I’m trying to understand the counter argument.

I did

OK, it took me a while to understand this, and I’m assuming you meant “I do have some criteria”. If you meant something else, I can’t even guess what it was.

after the bit you cherrypicked.

Ah, my bad. I mistook the “pagers that will randomly move around a populated area” part as a purely rhetorical statement and my brain kinda swept it aside. Sorry. The explosives weren’t planted in a random batch of pagers. It was in a batch specifically meant for Hezbollah operatives. You could make the argument that some of the pagers got into non-Hezbollah hands (and obviously they did), but what you said is a gross and unfair exaggeration. Your criteria doesn’t apply here.

CerealKiller01 , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

And those Hezbollah operatives can lose their pagers

And you can lose your car keys. But if someone asked you where they were, you wouldn’t say “Oh, they’re in a random place”.

or they themselves can move randomly through populated areas with the hidden bomb strapped to their hip

The explosive charge was small enough to seriously harm only those who are in direct contact with it. There’s a video of one charge going off in the middle of grocery shopping (speaking of your next point) with a person standing maybe 20 cm next to the explosion. That person was able to run away without apparent harm.

They never go to buy groceries, or stop at a hospital or school, or have their devices stolen or lost in some random location

There’s no method of warfare that would never harm civilians.

a manner that has absolutely no mechanism by which to control where they actually are and who else is in proximity to them when detonated.

The pagers being bought by Hezbollah is the mechanism. Did you mean a real-time mechanism? Is this what it boils down to? Edit: Sorry, I misread what you said. Changing my reply to: As you can see from the video, where they are and who is next to them isn’t really a factor. I would agree that if they are in very close proximity to another person (hugging them of maybe riding in a crowded public transport), the explosion will probably harm the other person. Once again, relative to other methods aimed against targets operating among civilian population, this seems more selective, not less.

CerealKiller01 , 9 days ago

Obviously, it would depend on which country you’re asking.

No idea about the US, but what you’re describing has kinda been done. The PIs were hired for a set amount of time to track some politicians during the day, and were supplemented by freedom of information requests and data from public sources.

Most of the findings were what you would expect (Some parliament members barely came to the parliament, some had days with mostly political activists/lobbing/business magnate). There were a few “out there” examples, as one parliament member was doing grocery shopping etc. Thing is, this method is pretty good to figure out what politicians work for the public and who works for private interests, but it’s nearly impossible to actually uncover anything that’s even skirting on the illegal. A PI can’t wiretap or search private property.

A tangent, but In the same spirit, there’s a crowdfunded lobbying agency called Lobby 99.

CerealKiller01 , 11 days ago

Err… did I misunderstood the question, or do (nearly?) all commenters have no idea what they’re talking about?

You’re asking why Israel doesn’t assassinate Hamas’s top leaders, right? Or did I misunderstood and you asking Israel doesn’t ONLY assassinate Hamas’s top leaders? Or are you asking why Israel responded differently to Munich?

To answer the first question, well… they are. Hamas’s top leaders according to BBC are:

• Ismail Haniyeh - Killed.
• Mohammed Deif - Probably killed.
• Marwan Issa - Killed.
• Mahmoud Zahar - Alive. is 79 years old and might not be active/influential in the leadership.
• Khaled Meshaal - Alive.
• Yahya Sinwar - Alive.

Also, keep in mind that the response to the Munich massacre took about 2 decades.

As to why Israel dosen’t ONLY assassinate Hamas’s leadership, the simple answer is that it won’t solve anything. It won’t bring the hostages home (It will probably have opposite effect as a. it will leave Israel without a centralized entity with whom to negotiate and b. Sinwar might be using hostages as human shields, which also might explain why he’s still alive), and it will still leave Israel with a terrorist entity next door. The official Israeli version is that the assassinations, among other things, serve as leverage on Hamas leaders to secure a deal. Obviously, this is only effective if there is some leadership left.

If you’re asking why Israel responded differently to Munich, it’s because the situation is totally different in numerous ways. But the question itself is also factually wrong - Israel didn’t only assassinate the leaders of Black September. Firstly, the goal was to “assassinate individuals they accused of being involved in the 1972 Munich massacre”, not just the leaders. Not only that, Israel also responded with raids and bombings (for example: 1973 Israeli raid in Lebanon).

CerealKiller01 , 11 days ago

OK, I’ll just answer plainly, and if I misunderstood you, feel free to correct me:

OP asked about the difference in Israel’s response to Munich and Gaza. I tried answering that to the best of my ability, as it seems most other answers didn’t correct the implicit assumption that Israel doesn’t go after Hamas’s leaders. If you think someone is “obsessed with Munich”, you should respond to the OP.

However, I get the feeling some people here took the question as “let’s use this question to further convince ourselves/others that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza”. In this context, your reply makes more sense when it’s addressed to me.

CerealKiller01 , 1 month ago

It’s not necessarily a matter of subjective vs. objective. There’s a difference between appreciating art and enjoying watching something. IMO, Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room” is utter garbage, but it was extremely enjoyable to watch.

CerealKiller01 , 1 month ago

I’ve ordered some household items (door stoppers, tools etc.). The prices were somewhat cheaper than AE, the quality was fine (some things were better than expected. Some very cheap items were… Let’s say they were priced according to their quality. Thought other very cheap items turned out good, so it’s a gamble) and shipping was OK. Never tried the app for privacy reasons, but the site seems ok-ish (it’s a bit janky, but I suspect it’s due in part to some privacy addon I use. In short:

1. Don’t use the app.
2. Don’t buy very cheap stuff unless you’re willing to chance it.
3. The “prizes” either appear only in the app or can be disabled via ad blockers and/or privacy addons.

CerealKiller01 , 1 month ago

No no, they meant first of many unfulfilled promises.

CerealKiller01 , 2 months ago

So what would be the color created by a wavelength of 550nm?

CerealKiller01 , 2 months ago

Ohhh, I think I get it.

Purple is what you get when you force the visible light spectrum into a wheel, so there’ll be something that “connects” blue with red?

If so, is the reason we perceive green as a different color than purple is because we have receptors for that specific wavelength, otherwise both colors would affect our red and blue color receptors similarly?

CerealKiller01 , 2 months ago

Cool. Thanks

CerealKiller01 , 2 months ago

Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.

Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.

And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.

CerealKiller01 , 2 months ago

Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.

Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, women are better managers.

CerealKiller01 , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Gaza was a part of Egypt and the west bank was a part of Jordan until 67. Israeli Arabs (not saying “Israeli Palestinians” as some of them don’t identify as such) were under martial law till the 60s, but still had many rights deprived from other Palestinians and even some minorities in western countries (for example, they had the right to vote).

CerealKiller01 , 3 months ago

I’m from Israel, and no one is using “Zionism” in the second meaning.

Zionism is, by definition, support for Israel as a Jewish state.

There are those who say “real Zionism” is supporting settlements in Gaza and the west bank, but there are also those who say “real Zionism” is an Israeli state existing alongside a Palestinian state. That’s like a US democrat saying a “true patriot” would support supplying a social safety net for the well-being of all citizens, while a US republican would say a “true patriot” would support a small government that doesn’t restrict the will of all citizens.

Personally, I feel that referring to Zionism in general as support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza started as a (partially successful) tactic to de-legitimize the existence of Israel. Not saying everyone who uses the term incorrectly is an antisemitic or whatever, but that’s basically where it came from.

CerealKiller01 , 3 months ago

I don’t think they say this much anymore since all Republican policies are explicitly about restricting the will of their fellow citizens.

Thant’s not really the point, though it does kinda feed into a general issue with the way both out countries (assuming you’re from the US) are divided - When was the last time you had an actual talk with a republican in order to understand what he/she thinks?

I never used it this way or considered it this way until the past few months. 🤔 Now you’d have a hard time convincing me that it’s not what it means.

Err… that’s just the definition of the word? You can look it up on any dictionary.

We could talk about the current government, it’s policy or the opinion of Israelis but saying the entire concept of Zionism equals support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza is not only factually wrong, it collapses the Israel-Palestine issue into a winner-take-all situation, where both sides are encouraged to beat each other in the hopes one of them will give up before both are dead.

CerealKiller01 , 3 months ago

Every day until the Pandemic.

Cool, good for you (seriously). Do you honestly think they’ll say they’re against the freedom of the individual, or is it that you think they’re against it? Not saying you’re right or wrong, just asking if you’re describing what you think they’ll say, their own beliefs or the beliefs/consequences of their party. It’s an important distinction, especially when trying to engage in dialogue with them.

I’m just looking at what I’ve spent the past several months witnessing via news reporting and video clips.

Maybe I don’t follow enough news outside of Israel, but I do read quite a bit and there wasn’t anything about Zionism. Could you maybe link to one or two sources?

I’m not debating what the dictionary says about it.

I’m actually not debating at all, right now I’m trying to understand you, and I’m having some difficulties. My best guess is, you seem to have issues against the Israeli army and government (me too, btw), and somehow decided that’s Zionism. Zionism is more than a century old, and there are plenty of people who call themselves Zionists, yet don’t support all the IDF and the Israeli government did during the past few months (you’re talking to one right now, and Biden is another example). Do you think these people are wrong in what their opinions are? That they’re lying? That they’re not using the correct word, even though that’s the same usage as in the dictionary?

CerealKiller01 , 4 months ago

“Conservatives” is a misnomer here. “Conservative” isn’t right and “Progressive” isn’t left.

Conservatives are those who want as little change as possible so as to “not rock the boat” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Progressives are those who want to try out new policies.

From what I gather, a large portion of today’s Republicans aren’t actually conservatives rather regressive. That’s almost literally what “make America great again” means. That’s also the meaning of, for example, the Roe v. Wade overruling - going back to an earlier state.

Also, in the long run the human condition generally changes for the better (Or at least that’s what we perceive as our values and habits are usually aligned with what we have now and not what we had before). As the status quo changes, the things conservatives (and progressives) value change accordingly.

Saying “Conservatives were the people who defended King George.” as if that has anything to do with conservative today is like someone saying “Progressives on the 18th century were for women’s suffrage, they have no business talking about equality”.

CerealKiller01 , 4 months ago

Hi, Israeli here.

I’ll start off by saying this turned out to be a VERY long post. I did my best to condense the absolutely necessary parts, and I still feel I’ve left a lot of important stuff out. Anyway, hopefully anyone who’s interested in the situation and reads this will be able to gain some insight.

The thing is, you guys are looking at the situation in Israel from your perspective without understanding the factors at play. To actually understand the situation among Jewish Israelis (who I’ll refer to as “Israelis” for simplicity’s sake) requires a thorough explanation about Israeli culture, politics and some history.

Saying “I don’t see any signs against genocide, that must mean all Israelis are pro-genocide” forces your perspective on the situation, like saying (in very broad terms) “I didn’t see any signs that talk about ‘all life matters’ in the BLM protests, that must mean they only value black lives”, so imaging that, but instead of an American saying it, it’s some dude in Thailand who has very little understanding of the racial situation on the US.

So, let’s go:

Right now, the country is pretty divided among supporters of the current government and those opposed to it. While the government has a 53% majority in the parliament, it really never had more than 50% supporters among the population (Firstly, some left wing parties didn’t get enough votes to get into parliament. Also, right after the elections the Likud government adopted a plan proposed by the religious far-right party that would, in essence, transform Israel into a Hungry-like hybrid regime which made many liberal Likud supporters oppose the government). The opposition grew stronger after Oct. 7th, though the government still has the support of (mainly) the far right, the ultra-orthodox religious parties and the Israeli version of Trump supporters who mainly want to “own the libs”. There are weekly polls that check how many people support the current government and Netanyahu is using every trick in the book to increase support among the public because his coalition is extremely fragile.

However, regarding the war in Gaza, there is a consensus that’s shared among a very large majority of the population from both sides:

1. The Israeli hostages must be returned. I cannot overstate how important this is. Firstly, Israel is a tiny country, quite communal and most Israelis have large families. The hostages aren’t “citizens”, “people” or even “fellow Jews”. They’re “The niece of my dentist”, “My ex’s uncle”, “The daughter of friends of my colleague” etc. Nearly Every Israeli knows someone who knows someone who’s been kidnapped. Secondly, one of the founding ethos of Israel is to have a safe place for Jews that’s free of persecution no matter what. The Oct. 7th massacre is seen not only as a tragedy, but as the state not performing one of its core functions to some extent. Lastly, redemption of prisoners is a major commandment in the Jewish faith. This is the main point on all virtually ALL Israelis can agree upon (Let me stress that again - the agreement isn’t that the hostages “should” be returned, but that they MUST be returned. That’s important for later).
2. Hamas must be destroyed. If they’re allowed to exist, this will happen again (There is, however, disagreement on how best can Israel vanquish Hamas).

These two objectives are seen among many (not sure if most) as contradictory - Hamas is using the hostages to force an Israeli retreat from Gaza, and the only way they will release all of the hostages is if that secures their rule in Gaza. This is also important to remember for later.

3. What Israel is doing in Gaza is somewhere between unfortunate and tragic, but it’s absolutely not genocide, rather a result of Hamas integrating itself into civilian infrastructure and hiding behind civilians (again, this is the mainstream opinion, not something agreed by ALL Israelis).

I, personally, subscribe to the first two points, do not believe they are contradictory and while I believe the IDF isn’t nearly as cautious about harming civilians in Gaza as it should be and that not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is immoral, both things do not constitute genocide.

Those numbed three points are in the Israeli consensus, but we have one more crucial piece of context before I get to the demonstrations - There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum - in the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages. The other group is left leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas Will solve the issue in the long run. They also believe the current government doesn’t really want to get rid of Hamas, rather they want to make sure Hamas will remain the only Palestinian ruler in the strip, so the government has an excuse to continue the current treatment of Palestinians (both as individuals and as a people). The first group thrives on extremism and sowing division (and if this reminds you of a certain US political party and a US politician in particular, you are absolutely on the money), and the second group is trying to build on a consensus, and make room for liberal right leaning people in order to gain influence (the opposition is actually composed of two liberal right wing parties).

Oh, wait, just one other thing - There’s a joke that goes: A Jewish man is stranded on an island for 20 years. He is finally rescued, and the rescuers see the life he built for himself. Among all the things they see, there are two synagogues. They ask the man “you were on this Island alone. Why do you need two synagogues for?” The man looks lovingly at the first synagogue and says “Well, this is the synagogue where I prayed every day for someone to come and rescue me, and this” he says while looking disdainfully at the second synagogue “is the synagogue where I wouldn’t be caught dead in”. Point is, Jews and Israeli Jews in particular, love to argue and have disagreements. Think The Life of Brian’s The People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front. So when I say “there are two groups”, it’s more like “there are about 1,000 groups that can be broadly divided in two camps”.

You’d think this leads to a society that’s fractured on many levels so that it can’t really operate, but Israelis are also very good at putting differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal.

So, finally, about the protests - as you may have guessed, the people who are protesting belong to the second camp. And yes, many of them think what’s happening in Gaza is wrong. But remember the whole “putting our differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal” and the “The hostages must be returned”? That’s the strategy in a nutshell. The protesters are trying to use the single most agreed upon goal, and build a consensus for a deal from there. That’s the reason you won’t see anything about Gazans in the protests. Going outside the consensus gives the far right more ammunition to paint the protesters as traitors and to rally the moderate right against them. The push for a deal NOW (the main rally cry) will cease virtually all IDF operations in Gaza anyway, so in some of the protesters’ minds (mine included), protesting against the IDF while correct in a vacuum actually goes against that very cause. Now, I don’t really know US history that well, but think what would happen if the Vietnam anti-war movement made room for more conservatives on the grounds that the war is harming the US. Maybe Nixon’s “law and order” campaign would have failed and he’d have lost the elections. I might be talking out of my ass here, but even if I’m wrong I hope this at least gives a better understanding about the strategy used by the protesters in Israel - they’re saying “You don’t have to join us because you’re a hippie peacenik. You have to join us because that’s what’s best for our country”.

I’d like to stress that the protesters are NOT hiding their opinions. They just want to make as much room for other supporters. Some people are willing to protest for a cease-fire if that means getting the hostages back, but would not be willing to protest alongside a sign that says “The IDF is killing innocent people”.

So that was about the situation in Israel. If you came this far, I hope you found the read worth your time. Now I’d like to ask for a bit more of your time in return.

I have a question for the people who are protesting against Israel to stop the “genocide” unconditionally (or those who are in support of said protests), but are not protesting against Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally (or those who see no need for these protests) - I assume you don’t agree with Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7th, but obviously you don’t believe these actions justify what Israel is doing in harming innocent people (BTW, most Israelis would agree. If you don’t understand how this can be, refer to the 3rd point stated previously).

I’d like to ask why does this logic not work the other way around? If what Israel is doing is reprehensible regardless of anything Hamas has done previously and should be opposed, then surely what Hamas has done is also reprehensible regardless of what Israel has done previously and should be opposed. Is it just a matter of numbers, so there’s a “minimum casualty” that justifies protests, and below that the victims are SOL?

Not saying that’s the case, but that’s what I was able to come up with. Maybe I’m missing some context.

And before you say that’s just whataboutism - I don’t think it is. Both things are a part of the same situation, so I think this is more a case of a cop seeing two cars driving on the road at night and stopping only one of them (where the driver happens to be black).

CerealKiller01 , 4 months ago

Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.

First of all, you got the gist of what I’m saying. There are a few things I’d say were a bit off, but most of it isn’t worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you’ve actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where…).

You’re absolutely correct saying the two camps I’ve described are not left-right. Notice I didn’t say “left”, rather “left-leaning”.

The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to “Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?” Or, how it’s usually framed, “Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?”. If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian “Is Israel a partner for peace?”, which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.

It’s also correct to say that in the last year there’s been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there’s A LOT of historical context I’m not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I’m all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren’t protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don’t understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.

Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel’s invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a “free pass” since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a “free pass” as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side’s violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it “the cycle of bloodshed”). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas’s foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as “aparthide”). I’m saying this not to try and convince you that “the Palestinians started it!”, but to explain why “They started it!” is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.

The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying “October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel” is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians’'. That’s blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).

“The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith.” Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on “How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution”. The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that “Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden”, and Netanyahu saying “Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas”.

Regarding Israel being a “bad ally” to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don’t know what Israeli news sources you’re following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don’t provide Israel with support?

To finish, I’d like to address the use of “apartheid” when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.

Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I’m saying “Arab” to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as “ethnically” Palestinians who don’t identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren’t citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that’s more akin to the way black people are (“are”, not “were”) treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so “apartheid” doesn’t apply. We’re left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn’t race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as “living under occupation” and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as “the occupation” (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than “apartheid”, especially considering that “apartheid” is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that’s one of the reasons the distinction between “occupation” and “apartheid” is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.

CerealKiller01 , 4 months ago

Dude, thinking that Israeli Hasbara would sit quietly waiting for someone to say “hey, I wonder if there are any Israelis in the crowd, let’s hear what they have to say”, and then writing a 1,700 word reply on a small platform such as Lemmy is puzzling at best.

Calling it, even as a backhanded compliment, “developed” is mind boggling.

CerealKiller01 , 4 months ago

Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.

CerealKiller01 , 4 months ago

I think we’re on two different wavelengths.

Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.

Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.

CerealKiller01 , 5 months ago

First, Ask the colleague why she feels her way is better.

If she says something like “it just is”, reply that while you’re open to other ways to do things, you have a way that currently works for you, and would need a reason to switch your workflows.

If she gives an actual answer, consider it. Maybe it is better than what you’re use to. maybe it’s possible to incorporate both ways to have the best of both worlds. Assuming you still think you way is better, say something along the lines of (I’m basing this on something I said to a co-worker in order not to be too abstract): “I get that doing it your way [is simpler and requires less troubleshooting], but it can also [give wrong results if a thing changes and we forget to correct for it]. My way [corrects for it automatically]. For me, eliminating the risk of [forgetting to manually correct] is worth the need to [do some troubleshooting]. Maybe that’s because you have [better memory] and I’m better at [technical stuff], so we each have a way that works for us, but will not work for the other. I appreciate that you took the time and explained your way of thinking, and I hope you understand why my way is better for me”.

After that, if she still insists, tell her you clearly aren’t able to come to an agreement among yourselves, so maybe it’s better you both talk to the charge nurse if manager or whatever.

CerealKiller01 , 5 months ago

The wrong assumption you’re making is that Israel is blowing up hospitals.

You’re probably thinking about the blast in Al-Ahli Hospital in October, that was ruled by both the US and most news agencies as a failed Islamic Jihad launch.

CerealKiller01 , 6 months ago

I think there are a few things that should be taken into account:

1. Hamas stated time and time again that their goal is to take over all of the land that is currently Israel and, to put it extremely mildly, make nearly all the Jewish population not be there.
2. The Oct. 7th attack has shown that Hamas is willing to commit indiscriminate murder, kidnapping and rape to achieve this goal. Some of the the kidnapped civilians are currently held in Gaza.

Israel had no real choice but to launch an attack against Hamas in order to return the kidnapped citizens and neutralize Hamas as a threat. You could say “Yes, that’s because Because of the aforementioned illegal occupation”, but just like the citizens in Gaza have a right to be protected against bombings regardless of what their government did, Israeli citizens have the right to be protected from being murdered, raped or kidnapped.

So, any true solution has to take both these considerations into account. Right now, the Israeli stance is that once Hamas will no longer control Gaza, the war could end (citizens on both sides will be protected). The Hamas stance is that Israel should cease hostilities so they can work on murdering, raping or kidnapping more Israeli citizens. That isn’t to say Israel is just, rather that Israel is willing to accept a solution that stops the killing of both citizen populations, while Hamas is not. The just solution is for the international community to put pressure on both parties to stop hostilities. The problem is that the parts of the world who would like to see a just solution (Eurpoe, the US etc.) are able to put pressure on Israel, while the parts who don’t hold humane values (Iran, Qatar etc.) support Hamas.

Now, regarding the massive civilian casualties in Gaza:

3. Hamas has spent many years integrating their military capabilities into civilian infrastructure. This was done as a strategy, specifically to make it harder for Israel to harm Hamas militants without harming civilians.

I’m not trying to say that all civilians killing in Gaza are justified, rather that it’s extremely hard to isolate military targets. Most international law regarding warfare states that warring parties should avoid harming civilians as much as possible. Just saying “Israel is killing TWICE as many innocent civilians as Hamas, therefore they’re attacking Palestinian people as a whole” doesn’t take this into account what’s possible under in the current situation.

CerealKiller01 , 7 months ago

I think that depends on the groups that exist near you.

I know someone who was in a similar situation (divorced around 50), and she found a local hiking group of divorced people who wanted exactly what you’re looking for. So maybe ask on a local group on some social networks?

Hiking specifically is great because it’s an activity that both kinda forces people to talk, and also supplies a default topic for conversation (It’s also free, healthy and doesn’t require special skills). If you’re not into hiking, maybe a book club? Volunteering groups, like other people suggested, also fits that bill. Point is, don’t just look for [an activity] with people your age, think about how much that activity is conductive for making friends. Something with 10% people your age, but that encourages talking with each other, might be better than something with 90% people your age where the group listens to a teacher together and then everybody does their own thing separately.

Also, It might actually get easier to find new people in a few years. Some people wait for their kids to grow up/move out before divorcing, which creates a spike of single people at that age.

CerealKiller01 , 7 months ago

What do you mean by “comedy impersonation” - parody, or just copying a comedian?

If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I’ll get my pants sued off.

If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he’s in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that’s a courtesy and isn’t legally mandatory).

The legal term is “transformative use”. Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn’t straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

CerealKiller01 , 8 months ago

I’m going to offer some practical advice that might help, but first there are also a few things I’d like to point out.

First of all, from reading your question and some replies in the thread - Is there any chance you might be neurodivergent (I think that’s the “proper” term. I mean what’s been known as low end autism or asperger)? Neurodivergent people have trouble understanding social cues/norms,and might have issues understanding why people act/react the way they do.

This is meant as a general observation that might be beneficial to understand the gap between you and other people, not as a judgment or way to imply there’s something wrong with you.

The second thing - the division between introverts and extroverts is kinda false. In reality, it’s like height - there are tall and short people, but most people are of generally average height. Like height, most people are towards the middle. You are probably on the end of the bell curve of extrovert-introvert. That’s something you need to understand. This also doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you, but right now it looks like you’re acting like a 2.2 meter tall person who thinks everyone below 2 meters is short. Yes, society is built for people who are of mostly average “sociality”. Just like it’s built for people of mostly average height, and tall people might have issues finding clothes or having enough leg room in their car.

Most people expect some level of sociality with their co-workers. They aren’t necessary attention seekers or “extroverts”. That’s just the way their brains are wired. When they don’t get that social interaction, they will look for an explanation - Did they say something to offend you? Are you busy? In a bad mood? A standoffish person? Maybe you’re just shy, and they should initiate more interaction to make you more comfortable?

So, what you want to do is to answer those unasked questions in terms they can understand and without offending them. Imagine you’ve accidentally bumped into someone while walking. You’ll say something like “Oh, I’m so sorry for bumping into you, I was in a hurry. Are you alright? OK, sorry, again, have to run”.

If someone asks “How was your weekend?”, give a bland answer like “Oh, it was good/fine/ok”, then say "Sorry, I don’t mean to sound rude, but there’s a ton of stuff I need to get done" Say this in a tone like you’re apologizing for accidentally bumping into them. Then say “But look, if you’d like some help/advice/to tell me something about that [work related thing we have], I’d be happy to”. For most people, this conveys the message that (a) you’re trying to focus on work, (b) you really don’t mean to offend them and © you’d be happy to talk to them about work related stuff. Some people might ask you again next week. Give the same answer. Most of them will figure out you’re just always busy working and stop bothering you.

Two more things:

1. Do try and offer help in work related things once in a while - “Hey, I heard [work thing] is giving you trouble. I’ve actually had the same issue and would be happy to help”. This conveys you’re approachable on work-related things, and will make people more inclined to help you when needed.
2. Walk fast and with a purpose. This serves a dual objective - to better convey that you’re always busy, and minimize interactions. The only question you’ll get is “why are you walking so fast?” or whatever. This can be handled by saying something casual like “you call this fast?”, “ah, you know how it is…” etc. without slowing down more than necessary.

CerealKiller01 , 8 months ago

Ok, got it, thanks. I was a bit shaky on the proper terms and didn’t want to be specific, so went with the most general one.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

Hi, Israeli here. You didn’t really point out any misinformation, the linked article just gives some (IMO wrong and even misleading) context.

The majority of the rest of the names are of boys aged 16-18. However, there are also boys as young as 14 on the list.

The 14 year old kid was charged for hostile sabotage activity, gathering or association, attacking a police officer under serious circumstances, throwing stones, negligence and general recklessness, maliciously or negligently causing damage to property, arson on nationalistic grounds, weapons/ammunition/explosives. Also, it’s worth noting his trial was ongoing.

Prisoners have been convicted of crimes including carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Other common offenses detailed in Israel’s list include […]

Ehh… technically true, but very misleading. Usually, there are a few charges, some more serious than others. The 14yo kid could be described as “charged with negligence and general recklessness”, but that wouldn’t be the whole picture. Here’s a link to a list of 300 prisoners due to be released. It’s in Hebrew, but copy-pasting into google translate is good enough to understand the charges:

www.gov.il/he/departments/…/is-db?skip=0

In the first page, there are 2 prisoners charged with carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Both are also charged with attempted murder (one is 17 years old, btw).

And regarding “associating with hostile/unknown organisations”, from what I could tell, this means that the prisoner was charged with being affiliated with Hamas. Hamas is considered a terrorist group in the US, UK, Canada and Australia (Not to mention they massacred more than 1,000 citizens). So this might be my Israeli bias speaking, but… what’s unreasonable with throwing them to prison? Would being affiliated with ISIS or Al-Qaeda not carry a prison sentence?

“The main alleged crime for these detentions is stone-throwing, which can carry a 20-year sentence in prison for Palestinian children,” said a report published in July by children’s rights organisation, Save the Children.

Yes, “can carry”. A 20 year sentence is only applicable if the rocks were thrown at a moving vehicle with intent to cause harm. without proving intent, the sentence is 10 years. Children are not explicitly mentioned (though the reality is that most rock throwers are minors). In practice, the courts try to avoid sentencing minors who are charged mainly with rock throwing to prison, and even when they are sentenced to prison it’s for a few months.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

Yes, but also no.

Palestinians who are held without trial are held in administrative detention, that’s usually done if the person poses an immediate danger, but the evidence isn’t up to the legal standard (a judge still has to approve the arrest). It’s also used against Jewish citizens (though admittedly much less. IIRC there are two Jews held in administrative detention right now).

Absolutely none of the Palestinians held in administrative detention are about to be set free, and they aren’t regarded as “standard” prisoners (they are always referred as “administrative detainees”, never “prisoners”).

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

The question was about why are Palestinians in Israel are called “prisoners” and Israelis in Gaza are “hostages”, in the context of the people exchanged during the truce. The person I replied to said some “prisoners” in Israel are held without trial, to which I replied they are not called “prisoners”, and are not part of the exchange.

So… could you explain the point you’re trying to make? If that’s just some general point about Israel treating Palestinians unjustly, that’s fine (I actually agree with you to some extent), but I don’t see how that has to do with the difference between two specific groups of Palestinians and Israelis.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

Yeah, I’d like to address that.

This message turned out a bit longer than I intended, but I really tried to give the best answer I can.

First off, the video takes statements from the Palestinians released and conveyed them as-is. It’s extremely hard to verify things like that, so there’s absolutely no basis saying my comment is a “blatant lie” unless you automatically assume every Palestinians statement is the objective truth. If that’s the case, feel free to skip the rest of this post as there’s nothing I can say to make you re-evaluate your position.

I could just say “If you claim Palestinians have been kidnapped without any evidence or charges and held as hostage, please show me some evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims made by a party who has a vested interest in making false claims”. I thing that’s a valid claim, but as you can see, I do have a bit more to say. I’ve actually tried to check her statement when the video was posted earlier (not so I could argue about it, just to be informed).

First off, many of the Palestinians approved for release have been charged with serious crimes (some, though they might not have been release yet, as Israel is trying to release them from least serious to most serious). Even Al-Jazeera said most Palestinians released were charged with “small” crimes such as throwing rocks. So which is it - Are Palestinians being kidnapped without charges, or are they being charged with minor crimes? If some were kidnapped and some were legally arrested, would calling them “hostages” not be as inaccurate as calling them “prisoners”?

There’s only one Palestinian who said she was held without charges, not “many” as you claimed. It’s also worth noting she said she was “due to be released in October”, so I think it’s odd calling her a “hostage” (hostages usually don’t get released if a certain time has passed. that’s more correctly called a “detainee”).

Going from her age and arrest date, there’s only one 24yo female Palestinian who was detained in October and approved for release. I won’t try to write her name in English, as there’s 0% chance I’ll get it right, but in Hebrew it’s רגד נשאת צלאח אל פני (copy-paste the name to find her details, which can be translated via google translate).

Assuming that’s her, she was charged with “State security - other”, which is a general charge that can include espionage, giving information to the enemy, inciting violence and more. I will admit it’s a general charge, and the fact she was due to be released shows the Israeli state wasn’t able to make it stick.

So why did she say she was being held without a charge? Don’t know. Maybe in her mind “state security” isn’t a valid charge. Maybe she was exaggerating. Maybe she’s lying (yes, even oppressed people can lie). Maybe she was told her charge would be amended (that makes sense. As I said, “State security” is a general crime). Or maybe I found the wrong person. The point is, I did really try to find more information based on the video, and was unable to substantiate her claims. If you have any other source for similar claims, I’d be very interested to hear about them.

I live in Israel, and I’ll agree that a lot of times Palestinians are treated badly. I’m even prone to think the person in the video should have been freed after 3 months instead of 12. That said, there’s a far cry from that to saying Palestinians are kidnapped without evidence and being held without trial.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

You’re right, calling all the released prisoners “Palestinians combatants” would be wrong. Can you please point me to a source calling them that? I only saw something similar in far right Israeli news sites, who call them “terrorists” (all other sites call them “prisoners”).

Yes, all of these people are charged by the Israeli state, an apartheid state oppressing the Palestinian people. They can make up whatever charges they want. Who believes them?

If we assume a state-wide conspiracy, any state can make up whatever charges it wants. There’s no real way to prove that’s wrong. However, there are a few indicators I can think of - what’s the democracy index of said state? is that state’s judiciary system regarded internationally as being generally good? Do other democratic states believe said state? Has said state been caught in many lies regarding its judiciary system?

Going by these indicators, Israel’s status is at least OK. Not perfect, and if you’d like I can point out quite a few issues, especially regarding the treatment of Palestinians, but they do not “make up” charges as a general modus operandi.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

The op in this thread said: “The Palestinians are getting combatants who were arrested for other attacks by and large."

Right, but you said “The misinformation is calling all the released Palestinians combatants. That seems like the Israeli’s talking point here, which is a fabrication.” I have no reason to assume OP is Israeli. But even if he is, he isn’t representative of most Israeli sources (to the best of my knowledge).

Is there an index for which apartheid states are better than others? That seems like an interesting index.

I was referring to the The Economist Democracy Index. As of 2022, Israel is in the high end of flawed democracies (between Portugal and the US). Not saying that’s the end-all-be-all of democratic Indices, but it is the most widely known and commonly used, so it’s a good rule of thumb.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

State security - OTHER is indeed not a real charge at all.

What does that mean? It appears in the Israeli law, so it’s as “real” as any other charge. You could say it’s not a justifiable charge, but that wasn’t her claim. She didn’t say “I was arrested for an unjustifiable charge”, rather “I was arrested without charge”.

The word espionage exists as a charge, it is not in her charge.

I think that’s like saying “The word Murder exists as a charge, it is not in her charge” when talking about homicide. Not sure though.

Jailing someone for even 3 months without process is completely insane

Not “without process”, “without trail”. It’s not uncommon for prisoners being held 3 months only to have the charges dropped (regardless of nationality).

Afterwards you go on a journey dismissing this heinous court system as okay

“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. Not saying there aren’t any issues with the way Palestinians are treated in the Israeli court system, but you made some specific claims that I disagree with, and didn’t give any evidence.

Don’t look up the Amnesty report damming Israel for killing their hostages without process in jail.

Sorry, but I actually did try to look it up, and wasn’t able to. Could you please link to it?

The closet thing I was able to find is this, which refers to Palestinian prisoners as, well, prisoners. So even if it’s not the right report, it would seem Amnesty themselves don’t refer to Palestinian prisoners as “hostages”. Could we at least agree on that?

BTW, I didn’t read through the full report, but I find myself agreeing to most of the thing said (most weren’t news to me).

I’m not trying to say Israel did nothing wrong. Israel has done PLENTY of immoral things, and is currently doing plenty of immoral things. I’m saying that Israel isn’t some devil that wants to kill all Palestinians, and has zero regard for their lives (though some Israeli are). It’s extremely complicated.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

On what basis?

Again, I didn’t see any Israeli source referring to them as “combatants”.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

So about that Amnesty report…?

Anyway, after calling me a “cartoon villain Nazi” I don’t really think this discussion can go anywhere. so I’ll go a bit off-topic and say something other readers might find interesting:

About a month ago, I spoke with a Palestinian work-buddy (yes, Palestinian Israelis work with Israeli Jews. In the the same jobs and with the same pay. Apartheid).

I asked him how he’s doing, as he’s not only living in Israel (and therefor a missile can hit his family as well as mine. Yet another area where Palestinian-Israelis and Jewish-Israelis are no different), he has the added bonus of fearing some psycho Jewish supremacist attacking him. He mentioned that the police are monitoring social media, and summoning for investigation Israeli-Palestinian influences who show support for Hamas, threaten them with charges and release them. Me, a cartoon villain Nazi bleeding heart liberal: “wow, I don’t think anyone in their right mind should support Hamas, but summoning people and releasing them without charges just to threaten them… yeah, that’s rough”.

He replied “No, you don’t understand, that wasn’t a criticism. I’m saying that’s a good thing. If that’ll help stop a replay of two years ago [social networks played a large part in encouraging Palestinians to riot. The riots caused a surge in anti-Palestinian violence among Jews], I’m all for it” . I’m still not sure how I feel about that.

Not saying every Palestinian is like him and every Jew is like me. Just… yeah, it’s complicated.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

There’s a bit of confusion between owning a company and owning the shares. A company can buy shares of itself, but that does not grant it control of itself. Let’s say Cute Puppies inc. has 200 shares (so 200 shares = 100% ownership). You and I have 50 shares each, and the rest is distributed among many other holders (we’ll call them “the public”). So, we each own 25% of the company and the public collectively owns 50%. Now Cute Puppies inc. bought all shares held by the public, so it has 100 shares and we each have 50 shares. But a company can’t control itself by definition (it still has the shares and can sell them, but it can’t use those shares to vote, appoint directors etc.), so now we each own 50% of the company.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

Right, so, let’s talk naval ships from the age of sail. There’s no need for two sailing ships to face each other also, but that’s inevitably how ships will meet on the ocean. The HMS Enterprise spots the HMS Defiant. They plot a course towards the Defiant. Defiant will eventually spot the Enterprise, and will alter its course. Both ships will meet with their bows facing each other. Same logic applies with spaceships, with two issues:

1. There’s actually no need for two spaceships to meet in order to talk or transfer people. I’ll hand wave that away saying that’s standard procedure, as the cost in time and energy to go from the beaming range to visual range is negligible, and even in the 24th century it’s a good idea for ships in the middle of the vastness of space be as close to one another as possible in case of emergency.
2. While both ships will change their pitch and yaw to face each other, there’s no need to change the roll. This can also be hand waved - while there’s probably a standard, absolute “up” (say, using the spin axis of the galaxy) altering the roll will allow both ships to use the same subjective “up”.

CerealKiller01 , 10 months ago

I think the way people talk about themselves vs. the way they talk about others is very telling about their personality. Being positive and humble/making fun of oneself while being positive about others is a huge green flag.