Aie, damn. Lost in translation. I meant the settlements. But people have been elaborating about those in other comments by now. And I've come to stand corrected that even if the settlements are horrible, they're less horrible than suicide bombings and the likes.
Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution. History has basically proved that to be true.
What it's not:
1. The idea that Jews are in any way superior. All races have equal rights under Israeli law (although secular Jews have some obligations that other groups don't, i.e. mandatory military service) and Israel has a significant Arab population.
2. Religion-based. Early Zionists were all secular socialists. Religious Jews got on board later when they started to see Israel as a sign from God but the traditional position (and the reason why many Ultra-Orthodox Jews still don't support Israel) is that Jews weren't allowed a nation until the Messiah comes.
Israel isn't perfect (obviously) but your comments are completely disproportionate. You need to tone down the hate.
>>Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution.
Makes perfect sense. If you settle a persecuted set of people on a totally unoccupied land, which would be totally harmless. What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.
If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.
California has been "invaded" and the existing set of people "driven out" what, two times going on three now? (The Spanish driving out the Indians, Americans driving out the Mexicans, and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans).
This narrative about driving people out is an oversimplification at best, though, just as much for Israel as for California.
>> and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans
I don't see Hispanics flying around in F-16's bombing white American colonies. If they do, I will be the first to speak out. What you seem to be talking about is natural change in demographics, where a group of people grow in population and the other group doesn't grow much. And then there is natural movement(like immigration in case of Hispanics).
Also if its oversimplification, please explain us the right thing.
No, you made an intentionally irrelevant quip about Hispanics in F-16's, thus demonstrating that you are doing everything in your power to deliberately miss the point. Of course there's no point responding to you. Reddit is exactly the place for that kind of nonsense.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But people can (and do) build that kind of narrative all the time, which was my real point. The reality is always more complicated.
It's not even a valid comparison to the Mexican-American war, that's the point. You can oversimplify vastly different issues down to the same narrative if you want to, which is why these simple narratives tell us nothing.
>>If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.
If you think that's analogous to what happened in Palestine you need a history lesson.
>>What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.
But they weren't persecuted - they were paid off.
In 1917, at the end of WW1, Britain was given the mandate of administering Palestine - at the time a chunk of the recently-defeated-and-defunct Ottoman Empire. Part of this mandate was the Balfour Declaration, which basically said that Britain would work to build 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine ("it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine").
They worked with the "Jewish Agency for Palestine" (these days the Jewish Agency for Israel), who had been buying the land in the area from the previous owners - mostly Arab clans and local sheiks and so on. Nothing was seized, nobody was driven out or persecuted.
How does that relate to governance? Depending on the laws of the nation, property ownership and residence may not imply voting rights (or any sort of say in governance, voting or otherwise). I truly have no idea of the laws regarding this in that part of the world, but a simple argument of land purchase without addressing those issues doesn't really sway me too far one way or the other.
One of the things it took me a while to get my head around was that there kinda was no overarching nation at the time in question - at least not in the way we think of it today. The Ottoman Empire was defunct; nominally there were laws of the nation, but it was in no position to enforce them, and many of them hadn't been popular anyway (as they were secularizing).
In practice the people in the area operated as 'millets' - micronations unified by religious belief, governing themselves according to religious law. When the British took over administration of the region in 1917, they didn't try to change this.
So for the most part, the landowners that the Jewish Agency was buying from were the governance. The trade wasn't like one citizen of a nation selling to another citizen of the nation; it was like one country selling land to another country (and so moving its borders).
All Israeli citizens have equal rights. You can gain citizenship if you have a Jewish background, just like someone with an Irish background can gain an Irish citizenship.
The statement was that all races have equal rights under Israeli law not that all citizens have equal rights. Furthermore, Ireland has a naturalization process whereas the Israeli one is limited to Jews and spouses of existing citizens. Residents of the West Bank and Gaza are NOT classified as citizens of Israel. So either the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel or they are not. If they are not, then the residents there are under occupation. If they are, then why are they not granted citizenship.
I do not think that what Israel is doing is better or worse than what other countries have done or are currently doing and should not be treated any better or worse because of it. But it would be disingenuous to spin it as anything but what it is. To me, the strategy is to occupy and take over territory over time. It works. See the history of the United States versus native people, Australians versus aborigines, Chinese versus Tibetans. Might makes right. For Americans, we still benefit greatly from what happened in the past. Its not to say that the Palestinians are blameless, just that Israel has the 'bigger gun' in this fight.
Say what you will about history, but how people are treated right now is telling.
It's fairly uncontroversial historical fact that the Jews are originally from Palestine.
Why don't you do research on the early Zionists, if you're actually curious about the subject and not just trying to score points in an internet debate? Probably most of the early Zionists were very secularist.
Unfortunately I do not trust much of what I read about Israel, there is just too much propaganda from all sides. Everything is twisted for some cause. The only thing I know for certain is that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was probably a really bad idea since it has led to so many wars.
What propaganda? You're contributing literally nothing to this discussion except to smear Israel with vague counterfactual innuendos, and accusing me of propaganda? I'm trying to be as fair and honest as I can be. What are you trying to do?
I'm glad if going todo-less works for the author but I wouldn't recommend it. I doubt many people have the capacity to remember that meeting you're supposed to have Friday after next at 3:30 or that little bug someone just mentioned over the phone that you'll have to fix at some point when you're back at the office.
Like all things, you can go to far with todo lists. Todo today lists have never worked for me. But I'd be lost without a list of appointments and minor/forgettable actions (filed according to the context in which they need to be done).
The trouble with to-do-ing the minor/forgettable stuff is that, over time, you end up with a big-ass Katamari ball of minor/forgettable that is kind of oppressive.
Or you become a slave to getting minor/forgettable things done, out of fear that they will inevitably overwhelm you -- which they will, since there are always a zillion minor, forgettable things you could be doing.
Which is worse? I think they're both pretty bad outcomes.
Okay, I'm probably making that mistake because I use Todoist as both calendar and todo list.
There is another option as well as the two you list, which is to remove items off your list as you can't/don't want to do them. Since I never have any more than half a dozen items on any of my three calendar/todo lists I never feel particularly oppressed. But I know that if I didn't have
those lists there I'd be forgetting stuff all the time and letting people down - and I know because I never used to use a todo list.
I was thinking the same thing. And it's even more of an improvement when you consider who the smartphone customer base is spreading to. Out of all the tradesmen I know, I don't think any of them have owned an iPhone that wasn't shattered on at least one side.
Would people be going on about how boring they were if Steve Jobs were around? I doubt it.
The biggest problem Apple faces right now is that people expect them to lose their magic now that Steve Jobs is gone. Then as they watch Apple confirmation bias sets in and articles like this are written.
Apple is pretty well equipped to continue leading the tech sector, but this perception people have is going to be a major problem.
This political correctness stick is brought up on these occasions to ridicule a world where you can't say certain things any more. But this stuff isn't about this invented construct of PCness - does anyone claim to be politically correct? It's just a pejorative term invented by people who want to still be racist and old-fashioned. It's about respecting people whatever their background and not making sweeping and offensive statements about them based on the colour of their skin or where they come from or their disability, sexuality or gender.
As much as I love all these new touch UIs, I can't see myself using them on a desktop PC. The WIMP paradigm has way too many advantages on desktop to just be dropped.
Although if someone took Android and modified the application framework, windowing system, etc. to be a traditional WIMP desktop OS, I think that would definitely interest me.
Lux isn't as nice as the others because it doesn't change colour temperature, it just puts a red/brown overlay over the screen. AFAIK there's no way to change the screen's colour temperature in Android.
I was literally looking for flux on linux just before coming to HN to read this, so i can tell you flux is available for linux[1], although there can be issues; which prompted the creation of redshift.
I don't know what you mean by 'the colonisation thing'. What are you talking about specifically?