>Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, among others, have more control over our voices than we did. What's the story here? These platforms and most social media/news outlets are either owned by Jews or have deep financially vested interests from Jewish VCs (yes, including TikTok). Of course you're going to be silenced on their platforms. Anyone getting in a kerfuffle that this is a topic point that can't be brought up isn't…
Please don't conflate "Jews in general" with "Israeli Jews" or "the Israeli government". These three things are not inherently the same.
As a progressive Muslim - I believe both Israel and Palestine have the right to exist, and thrive. Unfortunately, it looks like the state of Israel has now become a needless oppressor and are content building an apartheid state without learning from the past.
As a conservative former Muslim: As long as Palestinians chant “from the river to the sea” and tolerate Hamas any talk about a two state solution is a joke. By not rejecting Hamas, Palestinians make themselves a military problem rather than a civil rights issue. You don’t give civil rights to people who are military threat. This isn’t a point about morality, but the simple reality of nations protecting themselves. If…
> the simple reality of nations protecting themselves
Israel is stealing from others (this is an established fact), its victims react, so Israel "protects itself" against that reaction. Are you ok with this? Do you think that robbers have a right to protect themselves from their victims?
The reasoning is objectively infantile I doubt that anyone can argue against that. I didn't say that he is infantile, I criticised the reasoning not the person. Sorry if even that is considered 'name calling'. I can edit it and word it differently if you want.
This feels like hair-splitting to me. Your comment obviously broke the site guidelines. If you'd please re-read them and do a more careful job of sticking to the rules, we'd appreciate it. Note this one, for example: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is a big difference between saying "your argument is terrible or infantile or whatever" and saying "you are such and such", I don't think that's hair splitting at all and I also don't think that the guideline you have referenced applies in this case either, but whatever you are the moderator so there is no point in even trying to argue. I edited the problematic part out.
> Act.IL is a Social networking service launched in June 2017 that can be used via a mobile app on mobile devices running iOS or Android.[1] It is used by supporters of Israel to oppose "anti-Israel content" such as boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS).[2][3][4]
Peace is unlikely as long as settlers continue to claim Palestinean land and force them out of their own homes, considering what an obvious mockery this makes of any kind of negotiations even for those Palestineans who do actively want peace.
As my original comment was immediatly flagged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah_property_dispute There was a court case that ruled that they have to be evicted because of not paying rent. "In response, the owners of the property (a private Israeli NGO, Nahalat Shimon), claim they have the legal title to the property in question and that, in the absence of rent being paid by the tenants, the tenants ought t…
Quite a good article about the issue.
"The Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (as described by the Israeli government and their supporters) or the Expulsion of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah (as described by Palestinians and their supporters) is a long-running legal and political dispute between Palestinian refugees and Israeli Jews over the ownership of certain properties and housing units in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem that has been called a microcosm of the Israeli–Palestinian disputes over land since 1948. Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over property in East Jerusalem which they owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over property in Israel proper which they owned. In this specific case, the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah were refugees who got plots, previously owned by Jews, in UNRWA lottery, relinquishing in return their refugee documents and accompanying rights. They have no right under Israeli law to repossess their pre-1948 homes in Haifa, Sarafand and Jaffa."
>Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, among others, have more control over our voices than we did. What's the story here? These platforms and most social media/news outlets are either owned by Jews or have deep financially vested interests from Jewish VCs (yes, including TikTok). Of course you're going to be silenced on their platforms. Anyone getting in a kerfuffle that this is a topic point that can't be brought up isn't…
Please don't conflate "Jews in general" with "Israeli Jews" or "the Israeli government". These three things are not inherently the same.
I never said they were inherently the same. I said the websites are owned or financially backed by Jews (meaning, they are owned by them) and no one should be surprised that they end up being against Palestine, or pro-Israel.
Such behaviour conflicts with a core tenet of Judaism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people
No it doesn't. > In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews, via descent from the ancient Israelites, are the chosen people, i.e. selected to be in a covenant with God. > This view, however, does not always preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples—rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with Go…
Chosenness by definition is divisive. From antiquity to the present, the idea of being divinely chosen has had powerful and often pernicious effects. If only one group has been divinely chosen then others have not been, and that justifies subjugating them and taking their land. Such rationalization has been used repeatedly, in the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism, in the enslavement and even extermination of aboriginal peoples, and in the confiscation of land by force from those not chosen—be they Canaanites, Jews, Muslims, Africans, Native Americans, Palestinians, and too many others.
It is hard to say Israel has less right to the land it took over than say New Zealand. The main difference is how long ago the settling happened.
In that case Israel should follow New Zealand's example and allow all Palestinians to become citizens, with full rights, stop being an ethnostate for Jews, stop with the racism and start behaving like the progressive country they pretend to be.
If they did that then they would completely cease being a progressive country and would become an Islamist country.
I’d urge people not to give up caring. There’s a lot of crappy things happening in the world and it can be a lot to deal with, but just tossing your hands up isn’t the answer. I’d also argue that tax paying Americans are obligated to care. Our money is funding Israel’s crimes and we are morally culpable if we don’t resist or try to change policy.
Yes, I am aware of that and do care for justice but am afraid to talk abour it IRL to be honest. To be publically acused of antisemitism for being critical to Israel could be a real nightmare Im not ready to go through. I am no antisemitist, on the contrary, some of my favorite people are jewish. Am I a coward? I think so but I have a family and want to hold onto my job. Here on HN I am not afraid to comment because…
You should know that saying some of my favorite people are jewish is something that sounds pretty bad. The idea that you would be branded as an anti-semite and lose your job because you are critical of Israel also sounds bad.
A lot of people are critical of Israel's policies, including many Israelis. There is absolutely no problem with that.