In Hebrew, it's a horseshoe turn.
In Hebrew, it's a horseshoe turn.
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:
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).
You can use LLMs to, well, do what they're designed to do - generate text. Need to write a marketing text? Summersie a meeting or make a summery more readable? Rewrite an "about" page to incorporate something new? Just be sure to read through the generated text and make sure it's correct.
I knew a conspiracy theory nut who said that society is about three months away from collapse. As in, on any given date society was due to collapse in a few months.
First society was due to collapse due to cancer caused by COVID vaccines. Then it turned to "COVID vaccines cause sterilization and cancer, which will collapse society in a few years" and complete disregard to the prior time line. Then society was due to collapse due to a global war caused by Putin using nuclear weapons. Which turned to "Putin will invade [my country, which does not border Russia. Or any country that borders Russia, and so on].
The fun part was that each theory didn't over-ride the previous, but they somehow build on top of each other. The atom bomb didn't replace the vaccine cancer, they were both part of the same plan. He believed in many other world-ending conspiracy theories, so I think he, like, gradually added layer. There was a thing with 9/11 that was somehow related to a world ending event (Probably began as a "The US is going to atom bomb the middle east and start a world war") and a weird economic conspiracy theory about countries not having any assets that probably grew from the 2008 financial crisis.
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.
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.
Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.
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:
https://www.gov.il/he/departments/dynamiccollectors/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.
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.
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 (c) 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:
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.
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.
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.
Because while "what we can mostly all agree" to that, Biden does not think that Israel is engaged in genocide.
Just because a group of people perceive something to be the absolute truth, doesn't mean everyone interpret reality the same way.
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.
My cat can almost definitely tell time within about 2 minuts. At least for a specific time of day. He gets canned food the same time every day, and will remind me I've yet to feed him at most 2 minuts after (unless he's asleep). The only clocks I have in the house are digital, and none makes a sound. It takes him a few days to adjust moving to and form daylight savings time, and the change is gradual. He does this after changing apartments, so it's not some noise form the outside. I have no explanation other than he can tell time.
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:
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).
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.
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).
Also, he's barred from being a minister as per Israeli's supreme court ruling (exactly because he's been convicted with fraud multiple times), so I highly doubt he could be appointed to the war cabinet even in theory.
One could argue that the ultra orthodox parties are active behind the scenes, but there's no indication of that anywhere. Israel has free press, so this type of thing would probably come out as rumors at the very least (By contrast, there were reports he was the de-facto minister of social services after the supreme court ruling).
Not to diminish the political power they hold, but in this specific case there isn't any indication they exert said power.
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.
Anyway, my point is that it’s very easy to believe all of it without being sceptical, because once you lose the trust in society, you don’t trust anything they say.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. 99% of people don't believe conspiracy theories because they're dumb or mistakenly came to the wrong conclusion. They believe because it allows them to create a reality where they are a part of a chosen few who have seen the light.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, I just got and used a whetstone for the first time yesterday!
I'll tell you what I did, with the understanding that I'm less knowledgeable than others in this post, but can probably better relate to your situation.
I'd also be happy to hear feedback from others.
I bought a dual King whetstone of 1000/6000 grit for a basic German knife that lost its edge after a few months of daily use. The 6000 side is probably overkill (King is made for Japanese knifes, which do require 6000 grit. 2000-4000 would do for a German knife), but the whetstone was at the correct balance of price, apparent quality and known brand.
I mainly used these two videos as guides:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkzG4giI8To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tahaaHxhbsA
Using a marker to see if I'm holding the knife at the correct angle helped, thought I mostly used it to get my bearings. I didn't bother with the whole 10, 8, 6 etc. stropping process, rather went a few times on each side, and tested it until the knife was able to cut through paper easily. Overall, I'd say it took me less than 10 passes on each side.
The main issue for me was forcing myself to hold the knife correctly and move my other hand to apply pressure at the right point (I was able to do it correctly, it just took a bit of work). I also had a hard time keeping the angle of the knife constant.
The whole process start to finish took me about half an hour, I'd say about 5-10 minutes were due to me being a noob.
When inspecting the edge, I noticed it was convex, which makes sense as the angle wasn't uniform. From what I understand, this might actually be better than a straight V edge (the most common type), so... yay for me, I guess?
After finishing the knife easily passed the paper test, and cutting through a tomato was more a matter of placing the knife on top of the tomato and sliding it back and forth, allowing the edge to drop down and slice it. The knife is at least as sharp as when it was new, if not sharper. There is one spot where I think the edge isn't as good, but I only noticed it because I was looking for issues and it isn't noticeable with regular use. Overall I'm very happy with the results.
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.
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.
Hebrew has a non-insult that sounds like an insult - "In your mother". It's not a polite phrase, mind you, but it's not usually used directly as an insult. It has many varied uses. it can be a shorthand for "Swear on your mother's life", mainly to express doubt (ex. "Dude, I won first prize in the lottery!" "really? In you mother!?") or a plea ("I really need a ride right now. In you mother, could you come pick me up?"). It can also be a modifier to "leave me alone", where "leave me in your mother" has about the same meaning as "leave me the fuck alone"/"fuck off".
No, I take offense to comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa because it's dumb. Not even saying it's wrong, it's just a dumb comparison.
Read again what the person you replied to said - it's basically "I don't have any information about Israel that's relevant to the question, but I'll just go ahead and assume Israel and Apartheid South Africa are the same thing and reply based on that. This will show Israel and Apartheid South Africa have a lot in common".
Dude, that just means that without vaccines you would have had, like, 10 kids.
"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".
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.
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.
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.
Didn't see Sorry About the Demon, but "campy horror movies that typically have 5 or below on IMDb" makes my brain scream Dark Angel: The Ascent and Modern Vampires.
On what basis?
Again, I didn't see any Israeli source referring to them as "combatants".
Against all flags. Pirates of the Caribbeans is more accesable to the modern viewer, but against all flags stood the test of time for 70 years.
That's the thing - to be valued by "the public" (mainstream society), one generally has to know something or be able to do something. If someone can't do that (because they didn't have the chance to learn or develop skills, or because their skills become irrelevant), the simplest way to feel valued is to change your point of reference. These people are treated like idiots by most of society, but within their group they're the smartest people there are. And all those sheeple that make fun of them? well, they're the real idiots, and when the whatever happens, they will see just how wrong they were. All one has to do so he can be considered smart and valued by this group is to accept some BS about the earth being flat or whatever. for someone who isn't valued by society anyway that's about the lowest entry price possible.
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.
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.
No no, they meant first of many unfulfilled promises.
That's a great insight into Israeli society.
The answer to your question is a resounding "yes".
In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.
Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a "fortunate son" type situation.
Furthermore, there's an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, "they don't risk their children's life in the army" (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).
The Israeli Jewish public doesn't see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated "others", but as their children, brothers and fathers.
I think that's a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who'll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn't really think about the question.