sndman's comments

This is not correct. You have to look at the historical context and the fact that this is an anti-colonial liberation resistance struggle since about 1929. If you don't understand the root cause of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, you've completely missed the cause of the violence. The root cause is the racist Zionist ideology that, in its implementation in Mandatory Palestine, needed (and still needs) to eliminate the Native population in its acquisition of land. This is clear if you look closely at the settler violence in the West Bank. This is a war for land.

It's not a religious war. It's an anti-colonial struggle.

An understanding of events of October 7 starts with an understanding of the historical context of Palestine and Israel: most of the coverage of the events of October 7 deal with the symptoms of the violence and not the source. An understanding of the source of the violence, by no means justified, is needed.

This history starts with an understanding of Zionism, an ideology that is racist, not in its origin, but in the way it manifested itself in the land of Mandatory Palestine. And this racism is part of the settler colonial movement where the logic of the elimination of the Native was activated. These elimination policies were in the DNA of the Zionist encounters with the Natives of Palestine in the late 19th century. They wanted as much of the land of Palestine as possible with as few of the Palestinians as possible. There was always the demographic dimension as well as the geographic dimension in the earliest policies of the Zionist movement and into what later became Israel. The more space the Zionists had, the less space the indigenous people had. These elimination policies could take different forms: genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and they take different forms in different places. What happened in Gaza cannot be taken out of this context of Zionists/Israeli elimination and the ethnic cleansing of half of the population of Palestine that took place in 1947-1949 and the destruction of over 500 villages. The ruins of some of these same destroyed villages where the attackers originated from, and were next to the kibbutzim that were attacked. None of this justifies the violence that took place on October 7 but is needed to understand the source of the violence. The source of this violence is the racist ideology, of a racist Zionist ideology that needs to eliminate the Native. Zionism is not unique in this regard and is similar to other European colonial settler movements that desired to eliminate the native populations on the land they colonized.

An understanding of events of October 7 starts with an understanding of the historical context of Palestine and Israel: most of the coverage of the events of October 7 deal with the symptoms of the violence and not the source. An understanding of the source of the violence, by no means justified, is needed.

This history starts with an understanding of Zionism, an ideology that is racist, not in its origin, but in the way it manifested itself in the land of Mandatory Palestine. And this racism is part of the settler colonial movement where the logic of the elimination of the Native was activated. These elimination policies were in the DNA of the Zionist encounters with the Natives of Palestine in the late 19th century. They wanted as much of the land of Palestine as possible with as few of the Palestinians as possible. There was always the demographic dimension as well as the geographic dimension in the earliest policies of the Zionist movement and into what later became Israel. The more space the Zionists had, the less space the indigenous people had. These elimination policies could take different forms: genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and they take different forms in different places. What happened in Gaza cannot be taken out of this context of Zionists/Israeli elimination and the ethnic cleansing of half of the population of Palestine that took place in 1947-1949 and the destruction of over 500 villages. The ruins of some of these same destroyed villages where the attackers originated from, and were next to the kibbutzim that were attacked. None of this justifies the violence that took place on October 7 but is needed to understand the source of the violence. The source of this violence is the racist ideology, of a racist Zionist ideology that needs to eliminate the Native. Zionism is not unique in this regard and is similar to other European colonial settler movements that desired to eliminate the native populations on the land they colonized.

Chappelle is a genius. And he's not even Jewish ;-)

What bothers me about articles like this is (regardless of its veracity) that when other claims of ethic supremacy (since they often have nothing to do with Judaism) is that there's an unmentioned claim of genetic supremacy (you must have the genes of a Jewish mother, regardless of whether she was a good mom or not, and regardless of whether you were raised in Judaism).

What exactly is the point of such genetically-based claims of Jewish ancestry?

Why do we feel uncomfortable reading claims of Asian claims of musical superiority? Or dark skinned NBA players/athletes? Are ethnic Germans just superior classical music composers, mathematicians, or physicists?

Zukerman is famous for saying in a master class at Juilliard, "In Korea they don't sing".

Articles like this are just insensitive and offensive cultural and ethnic stereotypes.

>“We’re here because we want this to be a normal state, you understand?” she said, “just like the United States or France or Germany. We don’t want this country to be taken over by those fanatics with their beards and their religion.”

I think its important to point out that Israel has never (and may never) be considered a normal state since it has been practicing apartheid against the Arabs [1].

It started with the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Native Arabs from over 530 villages and towns. These expelled, exiled, and stateless human beings are still living in refugee camps.

That's not a democracy and it's not normal.

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-... https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-thresh... https://www.btselem.org/apartheid ... etc.

> In 1948, Palestinian irregulars led by Amin al-Husseini, who had been The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spied for he Nazis and was a guest of Hitler's in Berlin during WWII and who organized SS troops for he Nazis from Bosnia, as well as 5 Arab nations all sought to destroy Israel. They lost.

That narrative has been debunked by historians (both Arab and Israeli) for quite some time. I would encourage you to look at recent documentaries (Tantura (2022), Blue Box (2021), etc.). These run counter to the Christian Zionist narrative promulgated by a strong (and very well funded) Israeli lobby.

When there is an article about Israeli researchers delving into the history of the land they have stolen, I pay attention because my family was ethnically cleansed from this land in 1948 because we were not Jewish. We were part of over 750,000 Natives exiled from their land, dispossessed and exiled. And not allowed to return.

Israeli citizens are not aware of their shameful past (ethnic cleansing, massacres, looting, and rapes) that took place in 1947-1949.

Oy Ye! Which comment was antisemitic?

Is any criticism of Israel now antisemitism?

"A nation that doesn't know its past, has a dull present and a future shrouded in fog" --Yigal Alon

This is a great idea. I've often written small chunks of code in my favorite other language (scheme). I find this very satisfying.

Of course, I only do this after finishing the original task. Sometimes, it's possible to work up prototypes in your favorite other language before starting the main task. This often leads to better code (i.e. less code).

> susceptible to dogmatically motivated biases.

Indeed. And it's not just biblical archaeology. The Israeli government influence and corruption extends to most academics.

When the Israeli academy is under control, a government can carefully construct its own history and when there is evidence of historical religious claims, well then, one can even reclaim ancient lands.

Also, a government can also confiscate land and open up a theme part based on this "research". Don't laugh. Ever hear of City of David?

This distrust of Israeli "historians" and it's treatment of Ilan Pappe even started the modern BDS movement

https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/11/tantura-teddy-katz-a...

It's not clear to me why human rights abuses by Israel or their practice of apartheid on non-Jews in the West Bank and Gaza should bother anyone at google. Morality or ethics was never in the equation.

Only immense political and consumer pressure will alter the behavior of colonial settler apartheid South Africa^H^H^H^H^H^H Israel.

Interesting interview today with Ariel Koren, a former Google employee who says she was pushed out for her activism, as well as Gabriel Schubiner at

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/1/google_project_nimbus_...

Let's not confuse Zionist ideology with Judaism. One is a peaceful religion whose followers understand commandment #8 (no stealing (e.g. land, property, etc.)).

And the other is a Fascist (even Einstein called the Irgun massacre 240 people (of Deir Yassin) a Fascist act of Menachem Begin (see his NYT letter December 4, 1948)), apartheid, militarized, racist government.

I think your main narrative is false and, after reading (at least) three major human rights reports (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem) in the last 2 years, many now regard Israel as practicing apartheid in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

This wasn't (and isn't) a war of equals: I think if you read history carefully (Ilan Pappe, Benny Thomas, etc) this is an colonial settler occupying force inflicting apartheid on indigenous non-Jews. All Native people have a right to resist occupation and apartheid. See the Battle of Algiers recently? This is how occupied people resist their colonial overlords. At some point, one must stop calling any criticism of Israel human rights abuses antisemitism. There is indeed antisemitism but advocating for human rights of non-Jews in a "democratic" state is not antisemitic.

In 1948, over 750,000 non-Jews were ethnically cleansed from their homes and villages. My parents left Haifa in May 1948 as the city was ethnically cleansed. They didn't leave voluntarily. The Haganah were rolling barrels full of explosives into Arab neighborhoods to terrorize the local residents. It was also a psychological terror campaign: what the Haganah called a "Jewish Whispering campaign". In other words, they advertised the Deir Yassin massacre over loudspeakers (in Arabic) to warn the non-Jews about what was going to happen to them if they stayed. See the Israeli assessment of "migration" from June 30, 1948 at https://www.haaretz.co.il/st/inter/Heng/1948.pdf.

Over 500 villages were burned and/or bulldozed to prevent the return of those expelled. Over 300,000 non-Jews were expelled before Israel was declared a state (May 14, 1948). It was only after this initial wave of migration that the neighboring armies began conflict to prevent the further expulsion of Native non-Jews. After Israel's creation, another 400,000 Indigenous non-Jews were expelled from their towns and villages

(From Migration of Eretz Yisrael Arabs between December 1, 1947 and June 1, 1948 url is above)

"In reviewing the factors that affected migration, we list the factors that had a definitive effect on population migration. Other factors, localized and smaller scale, are listed in the special reviews of migration movement in each district. The factors, in order of importance, are: 1. Direct Jewish hostile actions against Arab communities. 2. Impact of our hostile actions against communities neighboring where migrants lived (here – particularly – the fall of large neighboring communities). 3. Actions taken by the Dissidents [Irgun, Lehi]. 4. Orders and directives issued by Arab institutions and gangs. 5. Jewish Whispering operations [psychological warfare] intended to drive Arabs to flee. 6. Evacuation ultimatums. 7. Fear of Jewish retaliation upon a major Arab attack on Jews. 8. The appearance of gangs and foreign fighters near the village. 9. Fear of an Arab invasion and its consequences (mostly near the borders). 10. Arab villages isolated within purely Jewish areas. 11. Various local factors and general fear of what was to come."

So the non-Jews did not appear to leave voluntarily. When people flee for their lives (and are not allowed to return to their homes (because they have been destroyed), we call this ethnic cleansing. It's a crime against humanity.

It isn't that complicated: Zionists want the land but there are people already living on it. What do you do with the non-Jews already there? Israel massacred some of them and drove the rest out to neighboring countries (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and into the West Bank and Gaza). The exiled are still there. Just visit a Palestinian refugee camp and you can meet them. And why are they angry? They want to return to their destroyed villages. They want their homes back. They want their possessions returned.

> I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny.

Why exactly? I'm genuinely curious.

>Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was.

We now have 3 major human rights organizations saying Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinians.

We also have former South Africans openly saying Israel's apartheid is actually worse than that practiced in South Aftrica. I would venture that these people would know:

"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."

"Observers in South Africa are preparing to mark "Israeli Apartheid Week" on Monday. Tutu, meanwhile, has declared his support for the use of boycotts and economic sanctions as a means to compel Israel to alter its policies."

https://www.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/desmond-tutu-is...

As for Nelson Mandela, he clearly supported the Palestinian cause:

"We identify with the PLO because just like ourselves they are fighting for the right of self-determination," he said.

"Arafat is a comrade in arms, and we treat him as such." 'Our freedom is incomplete'

In a 1997 speech on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights.

"We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."

(Very interesting 1 hour 13 minute video interview Town Hall with ABC's Ted Koppel from 1990) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcQIEIRLU1Y

I believe that people get angry about it because the human rights abuses have gone on for so long without any noticeable change in Israeli policy. Some of this is related to the myth of equating Zionism with Judaism and as the location of Mandatory Palestine as the mythical homeland for the "ancient" Children of Israel.

After1904, the fixation on Palestine as the only territory in which Zionism could be implemented was reinforced by the growing power of Christian Zionism in Britain and in Europe. They believe, and still believe, that "Jewish return” would herald the "end of time" and the return of the Messiah.

It represented a double gain: getting rid of the Jews in Europe, and at the same time fulfilling the divine scheme in which the Second Coming was to be precipitated by the return of the Jews to Palestine [1].

[1] Stephen Sizer, “The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism,” at balfourproject.org.

This is the prevailing narrative in the West (especially in the US). The counter narrative, and this has been promoted by the New Historians (Israeli's in the 1990s) and Arab historians (since the 1950s), has been that the formation of the state of Israel was primarily a settler colonial enterprise: immigration started ramping up from 1910-40 and completed with the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians (from early 1948 to 1949) and the looting and destruction of their villages (both to prevent return and to erase any memory of the indigenous people (Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims) that inhabited Mandatory Palestine.

Not sure if that helps but it should give you a summary of the prevailing narratives.

>the search for a Jewish homeland was led by Jewish religious fundamentalists

Not initially. This myth of the Jewish homeland only took hold after the turn of the century.

The early Zionist movement was primarily ideological and not religious. In fact, the religious Jews dismissed Zionism as a form of secularization and modernization, while secular Jews feared that the new ideas would raise questions about the Jews’ loyalty to their own nation-states and would thus increase antisemitism[1].

When the Reformists first encountered Zionism, they rejected the idea of redefining Judaism as nationalism and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, their anti-Zionist stance shifted after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

After1904, the fixation on Palestine as the only territory in which Zionism could be implemented was reinforced by the growing power of Christian Zionism in Britain and in Europe. Evangelical archeologists who excavated “the Holy Land” welcomed the settlement of Jews as confirming their religious belief that the “Jewish return” would herald the unfolding of the divine promise for the end of time.

They felt, and still feel, that the return of the Jews was the precursor of the return of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. The Zionist project of colonizing Palestine was well served by this esoteric religious belief.

However, behind these religious visions lay classical anti-Semitic sentiments. For pushing Jewish communities in the direction of Palestine was not only a religious imperative; it also helped in the creation of a Europe without Jews.

It represented a double gain: getting rid of the Jews in Europe, and at the same time fulfilling the divine scheme in which the Second Coming was to be precipitated by the return of the Jews to Palestine (and their subsequent conversion to Christianity or their roasting in Hell should they refuse) [2].

[1] Ami Isserof, “Opposition of Reform Judaism to Zionism: A History,” August 12, 2005, at zionism-israel. com.

[2] Stephen Sizer, “The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism,” at balfourproject.org.

I think this law will only hurt the Israeli image abroad a little bit. The 3 recent human rights reports (calling Israel out for practicing apartheid) are much more damaging.

This is really about the (internationally recognized) right of return of the Palestinians. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's advisor James Carville in 1992: "It's demographics, stupid".

The 2003 law explicitly did not apply to residents of Jewish settlements in the West Bank wanting to marry and live with their spouse inside Israel, making it, and the ongoing policy underpinning it, blatantly discriminatory.

The thing to realize about this new law is that while it makes no mention of religion, it doesn't need to in order to add to the fragmentation of the indigenous people of the area. Non-Jews in the West Bank cannot now gain citizenship in Israel, if that was an avenue they had before, nor can they return to their villages (granted, almost all these villages within Israel have been destroyed so there's nothing to return to) or gain compensation for their loss.

(For a film adaptation of the 1949 novel by S. Yizhar called Khirbet Khizeh, search for the youtube version produced by Israeli Television in 1970 (and immediately banned in 1978 when it was released.))

I'm not sure why this outrages people in the US. Since 2002, Israel has adopted a policy of prohibiting Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza from gaining status in Israel or East Jerusalem through marriage, thus preventing family unification.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law enshrined the policy in law between 2003 and its expiry in July 2021. The law barred thousands of Palestinians in Israel and East Jerusalem from living there with their Palestinian spouses from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s then interior minister stated the law was needed because “it was felt that [family unification] would be exploited to achieve a creeping right of return...”

This recent law just formalized and made permanent what was always there: the demographics is what's important here. When you look at Zionism as a colonial settler project, it's just part of "purity" laws and an essential part of apartheid.

I did a lot of taping of movies that were broadcast locally. Lots of documentaries on PBS were many hours long and broadcast over the span of several days, or once a week over the span of several weeks. The only way to see them, for me, was to schedule recording for the entire series.

I had quite a collection of Woody Allen films on VHS only to watch then deteriorate before my eyes. It was sad to see them go.

I lobbied heavily to crawl my company's intranet since our official IT folks would not include the ~10k "grey" (as in unofficial) web servers set up by technical people over the years.

So I tried this myself and quickly realized how hard it was. I stumbled upon thousands of devices that had TCP port 80 (and 443) open so I had to devise various ways of removing these devices.

By the end of my project, I had run out of disk space so many times it was laughable. And tuning the crawling and the resulting mountain of data was daunting and started to affect my day job so I eventually gave up.

A couple of months after my "project", and with enough warnings from IT and our network security folks, our company decided to purchase a couple google 1U servers.

This is a really good article. I've enjoyed freebsd on older hardware for since 4.x days.

One of the most satisfyung aspects of FreeBSD (really all the BSDs) is the ability to rebuild the "world". Rebuild as in recompile the entire OS and userland tools. It comes with the installed OS.

Is there even a linux distro that does something similar?

It's not just Amnesty calling out apartheid Israel: Amnesty's report came out after Israeli human rights advocacy organizations published their reports:

1. 18 months after Yesh Din's "The Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion,"

2. A year after B'tselem's "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid."

3. Eight months after Human Rights Watch published "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution."

4. Five years after experts commissioned by the UN's Economic and Social Commission of West Asia had authored "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid"

We can even count Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu calling out Israeli apartheid.

None of these criticisms were related to Judaism.

Are they all antisemitic?