I'm in Japan and while I can speak modern Japanese I don't know shit about classical Japanese so I'd be screwed. I'm also not Japanese so good chance I end up getting killed or some shit
NoneOfUrBusiness
joined 10 months ago
Okay I did not expect that. Here's hoping this gets domestic coverage.
Gaza is, both figuratively and literally, the testing grounds for the dystopia cyberpunk authors have been warning us about.
The plans, hatched by Sweden’s rightwing government with support of its far-right backers, made waves around the world.
This one's a European homebrew.
20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs today, with full rights.
And is 80% Jews not an overwhelming majority? Again, Zionists committed a whole ethnic cleansing campaign to get the Palestinian proportion of the population that low, and they did not in fact have full rights until 1967. Everything the Palestinian and Arab side feared would happen did.
What offer are you talking about?
In its debates, the UN divided its member States into two subcommittees: one to address options for partition and a second to address all other options. The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.
Apparently it was an Arab proposal rather than a Palestinian one, so my bad there. Still, it was an option that was being talked about. And speaking of which, stop referring to Palestinians as Arabs. There are north of 300 million Arabs only about 10 million of which are Palestinian.
Edit: You also didn't respond to my Ben Gurion quote. This is the George Washington of Israel and he said "We must expel Arabs and take their place", in 1937.
Everybody would stay where they live already. Jewish immigration would only go to one of the states. It was always planned with a minority of Jews in the Arab state and a minority of Arabs in the Jewish state. So no giving up land that was privately owned. All land acquired by Zionists until 1948 was legally purchased.
Are you aware of what Zionists did in the Nakba? Are you aware of why they committed the Nakba? Zionists wanted a Jewish state with an overwhelmingly Jewish majority so they could maintain the facade of a Jewish democratic state. Ethnic cleansing was simply the solution to that "problem". There's no world in which Palestinians would be allowed to etay peacefully in their land because they'd never vote for Zionists. Also look at the shit they did after they won the war and the shit they keep doing now. Are these the actions of people that were ever going to respect private land ownership?
We must expel Arabs and take their place.
Zionists could've accepted the Palestinian proposal of a mutli-ethnic democracy spanning all of Palestine, which in theory should've posed no issue, but they didn't because it wouldn't be a Jewish-dominated apartheid state.
Between 1948 and 1967 Palestinians could have accepted Israel’s existence and declared a Palestinian state in the non occupied West Bank and Gaza.
They were occupied—by neighboring Arab states. And either way that's not a peace deal. Did you have something concrete in mind or were you just lying?
They were expelled by Egyptians in what was by all means a crime against humanity and affront to human decency. Now are you willing to say the same about the Nakba?
Okay and? I'm from Egypt and I wouldn't call myself a native of Iraq. Note that Middle Eastern Jews, having been expelled by the locals, were very much justified in going anywhere that would take them, but that's neither here nor there.
For the first three: Why the hell did they have to give up their land to people who explicitly wanted to create an apartheid state?
For the rest: Pick any one of those and I'll explain in detail why it was another farce. You'll also have to explain what 1967 peace deal there was for Palestinians to accept.
Disclaimer: I'm here from /all and not Australian, so there's a nonzero chance I'm talking out of my ass.
Meaningful change or nothing? Blame labor all you want, the greens voted against an improvement.
It's not pretty, but from my limited knowledge it seems that voting down the bill was the best course of action. A small party's goal in a two-party system is to twist the major parties' arms and force them to effect meaningful change, however the party's constituents define meaningful change to be. Jumping at the first sign of progress and allowing Labor to claim they've solved the housing crisis would defeat any chance of a real solution, establish precedent that Greens will back off from their demands for breadcrumbs and throw the ball in the Liberals' court after Labor's bandaid bill predictably fails to accomplish anything. If the Greens wanted to provide something better than a Labor majority both for housing and in general, it seems to me that rejecting the bill was the optimal course of action.
view more: next ›
I was wondering when we'd start hearing of brain drain to China so sounds about right. Hopefully the West gets its shit together because as part of that brain drain I do not wanna go to China.