You believe that anyone who lives on stolen land is not a citizen and deserves to be bombed? Americans live on stolen land too, as does much of the rest of the world population.
If it was 1570, it would absolutely be valid to remove settlers from the Americas. If fact the Pueblo Revolt is considered to be one of the more successful and justified acts of indigenous resistance.
Ok, it sounds the principle here is if any land was stolen in the 20th century the people who live there now aren’t citizens (regardless if they are children or not) and deserve to be bombed? I hope nobody tells the balkans.
First, this is completely untrue. Hamas and Hezbollah have been launching missiles at Israel literally nonstop for 20 years. The houithis have and will continue to launch missiles at US assets along the Bab al-Mandab Strait. All of these missiles came directly from the iranian regime. Those groups are an arm of the Iranian government
Thats not the point though. There is no reason for either party to respond proportionally in a war. Going to war against an equal weight class as idiocy, sun tzu figured that one out forever ago.
So Iran kills untold innocent children and innocents but because they havent yet launched an attack on american soil(they absolutely could) its immoral to stop them from killing more children and innocents? Doesnt make sense to me. Thats before we even get to the major economic damage their terrorist network has caused. The US morally must just sit back while Iran funds and arms the group that routinely shuts down global trade and costs americans billions?
> So Iran kills untold innocent children and innocents but because they havent yet launched an attack on american soil(they absolutely could) its immoral to stop them from killing more children and innocents?
israel has killed even more "untold innocent children and innocents", so you should expect to continue finding no global sympathy or solidarity for them as they, an aggressor, initiate a war of choice against someone else.
By your logic, israel has greater causus belli against themselves than iran. Yet we don't see israel warring against itself. The only conclusion is that israel doesn't actually care about kids being killed, and started this war for totally different reasons.
That's because its existence is predicated on the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians. It was literally formed via the Nakba, a brutal crime against humanity and it's been maintained through terrorism and now genocide. What's the point of the UN existing if it doesn't at least condemn these actions?
NASA is exploring space, our money to Israel encourages US participation in genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and global war. I'm in the US and support a single state solution: Palestine. I think most people under the age of 45 are in agreement.
We primarily fund the other Middle Eastern countries to keep Israel safe. Were it not for Israel, we would just have normal diplomatic relations with them.
I wouldn't go that far. The U.S. and other European powers have a long history of involvement in Middle East politics. Significant parts of the Middle East were once parts of various European empires. Many of them gained their independence only to find there were still a lot of strings and (pipe)lines of exploitation attached.
The U.S. did more than its fair share to glom onto those lines of exploitation and keep them alive at the expense of locals. e.g. Iran is what it is today because of U.S. oil interests. The CIA installed an authoritarian Shah when Iran's (at the time) democratic government started taking control of its own oil industry (American oil companies would have had to start paying taxes). Rule under the Shah was "unpleasant" for Iranians and revolution was the direct response. Hence, theocracy.
Israel is a special case in the Middle East. The zionist movement gained state sponsors and convinced European powers (and the U.S.) to pour money in instead of sucking it out. How they did that is a question that stretches back well into the 19th century. I'd argue that a lot of it was the result of people who had their hearts in the right places. Things just went sideways when it came to Israelis and Palestinians co-existing peacefully. At least some of the idealists of the early zionist movement honestly believed the influx of Jewish people would be a benefit to Arabs already living in Palestine.
> Things just went sideways when it came to Israelis and Palestinians co-existing peacefully. At least some of the idealists of the early zionist movement honestly believed the influx of Jewish people would be a benefit to Arabs already living in Palestine.
Teodore Hertzl (Zionism’s founder) was explicit about the need to ethically cleanse the Palestinians from their land.
Herzl, nor Hertzl. Do you have a citation or resource for this?
(I ask not because it's inconceivable, but because Herzl died almost half a century before Israel declared its independence. Ze'ev Jabotinsky is more consistently identified with revisionist Zionism/territorial maximalism.)
> "We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back."
Thanks. This demonstrates a world view that I don’t agree with, but it doesn’t really read to me like a justification of ethnic cleansing. The mention of removal is of poor people, and it doesn’t mention Palestine at all.
This is in marked contrast to Jabotinsky, who says these things explicitly[1]:
> Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonialization.
And:
> We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached
This isn’t to somehow excuse Herzl; he’s still an essentially colonial thinker. But from what I can tell he never thought deeply about the political mechanics of Israel/Palestine itself, in part because of European colonial assumptions around a lack of Palestinian connection to the land.
(Or in other words: Jabotinsky’s “innovation” is realizing that the Palestinians are a people with real attachments, not just realtors. It’s from there that he concludes, decades later, that displacement is the only workable strategy. He is, needless to say, also wrong.)
Edit: or another framing is that Herzl was too racist and provincializing in his limited view of Arabs/Palestinians to see where his movement would go.
We are the target of this propaganda, and I don’t mean the Scottish independence stuff. The US and Israel are jamming the airwaves with anti-Iran propaganda to manufacture consent to attack Iran. Every day we’re being subjected to a ton of this stuff on every channel (including HN).
It’s certainly not working on me, but I fear far too many of us are just taking these stories at face value.
You don't need a "Ketar class SCP object", simple conflict of interest from the Medical-Industrial Complex will do.
All those skin banks could turn into liabilities instead of profit centers, since preservation of the product is also preservation of the evidence.
A functioning government would waltz in, keep the power on, start sequencing the tissues and cells to identify at least some of the victims, and do this in a transparent and public way.
The problem is evidence, its not like those urologists like incriminating themselves. Even though my trauma occurred in hospital, its not in my medical file. How does one even start to file an official complaint if it didn't happen according to your medical file?
Thank you for elaborating! Your original comment was abstract and high-handed, but this makes it clear you're coming from a place of wanting to solve your own specific problem.
Practically if you know you were circumcised shortly after your birth, can't you look at the record of your birth and subsequent care, make a list of doctors that attended or treated you in any way, and then make the complaint about all of them?
(this isn't arguing against your point, just exploring the problem)
You are making assumptions, I was effectively infibulated (by "partial circumcision") after a false diagnosis, age 11, where I clearly conveyed I did not want to before it happened.
I know the name of the urologist.
I go to the hospital as a young adult, made an appointment with another urologist at the same hospital (to prevent myself from ending up in jail).
I ask her to check my medical record, it's not there.
She proposes to check the record under my mother's name: nope, under my stepfather's name: nope, my father's name: nope, and my father didn't even know it happened.
Meanwhile the university had some recent philosophy thesis paper that tried to answer the question why no one in my country has sued any urologist regarding circumcision, their conclusion? some random psychological stuff.
Psychological? the suppression of evidence (or access to the evidence) is not something that happens in my head, but in the real outside world.
I my case I know the name of the urologist, but we are denied access to legal evidence.
And why would they incriminate themselves? its not like they "woops-what-are-my-hands-doing" accidentally put the sample of foreskin in the sterile packaging again boy after boy, and "woops-my-arms-uncrontrollably" put it in their fridge until the medical courier picks it up, and remuneration magically follows without these surgeons understanding what they are doing. Of course they perfectly know what they are doing. It's organised harvesting of foreskin tissue. Why would they incriminate themselves with a paper trail? How naive the rest of society can be: we know these people select their profession because it is an auspicious hidey hole.
And this is in a hospital setting.
Now reread the posted article, every time people argue to only ban religious settings they pretend there is no trauma in hospital settings. The real reason is they want to lucratively harvest the tissues for themselves. It's a limited hang-out every time. Journalists either aren't doing their job, or are being censored by their superiors.
reply