settrans

You're changing the topic. Nobody is talking about ceding land, we're talking about re-establishing a nation in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. And besides, no Zionist demanded land or induced anyone to cede their land prior to 1947 anyway, since all Zionist land acquisition was through voluntary purchases and legal land transfers.

So are you arguing that the Jews are not a people that merit self determination? Or are you saying that because they were expelled from their homeland so long ago, they forfeited the legitimate claim to self determination?

Given that the Jews were forcibly expelled from their homeland by the Romans, by definition, any Jewish self-determination would need to take place in a land that is at least partially[0] already inhabited. You now have two choices:

1. Deny Jews the right to self-determination altogether, continuing the dispossession of an actively persecuted people, indeed, the same one that was about to face the Holocaust in Europe, thereby punishing them for their own historical victimization, or

2. Acknowledge the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination, even if it takes root in their historical homeland and entails negotiating with and sharing the land with other peoples, thereby accepting that historical justice often requires grappling with imperfect realities, and that two national claims can coexist without one invalidating the other.

Or are you arguing that self-determination only applies to groups of people who haven't been exiled from their homeland (i.e. the people that need self determination the least)?

[0] Before Zionism, the population of Mandatory Palestine was 98% smaller than the same region today. Even the Arab population has increased 26-fold. So, yes, technically it was inhabited, but dramatically less developed. And even then, Jerusalem was 60% Jewish.

1. Hamas bears the moral responsibility for all of the suffering in the war they started on October 7th, and the Palestinian people bear the moral responsibility of electing and supporting them (and participating in the invasion, and not returning the hostages).

2. Even Hamas now admits most deaths have been military aged males: https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592

3. How can you argue that Gaza has been starved and ethnically cleansed when the population of the Gaza strip has increased since the start of the war?

"The antisemite does not accuse the Jew of stealing because he thinks he stole something. He does it because he enjoys watching the Jew turn out his pockets to prove his innocence."

Although I laud your unassailable argument highlighting yet another instance of double standards against Jews, ultimately there is little upside in engaging with the "no, no, technically there is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism" crowd. I am sad that Hacker News is rife with this kind of bigotry, but I don't see the tide of this battle turning anytime soon.

In case, dear reader, you are one of the intellectually curious ones who holds the opposing viewpoint, ask yourself why you demand that only the Jews lack the right to self determination?

Not only are delivery vehicles levied an additional toll of up to $32.40 under congestion pricing, but every employee, service provider and vendor who travels by car is also assessed the fee.

Although marginally better traffic might be a side effect of congestion pricing, its primary effect is a wealth transfer from lower- and middle-class residents of Manhattan, who must buy goods locally at higher prices, to MTA contractors and their labor unions, who already make construction on the New York subway far and away the most expensive in the world.

Where is the congestion pricing tracker that measures the higher cost of groceries to working-class lower Manhattan residents?

I don't see anything in those articles that describe a plan or even the framework of a policy to annex the territories.

There just isn't a workable path forward to accomplish it. The Arabs who live there harbor irredentist fantasies to overthrow the Israeli government and replace it with Hamas or some other dictatorial organ, and as long as that is true, Israel has no desire to hand out citizenship to those people.

Of course, the minute that ideology becomes anathema among Palestinian Arabs, the whole point is moot because Israelis will have their security and a two-state solution would immediately become workable.

I have little desire to defend Smotrich (nor would Israelis, as his extremist party is currently polling at ~3% support), but even he wouldn't dare claim support for something as far-flung as the alleged "Greater Israel" ideology.

On the contrary, after Smotrich was merely perceived to lend support for expansionism, having spoken at a conference behind a graphic reminiscent of the Irgun's emblem depicting the entire Mandate for Palestine, it triggered a minor diplomatic incident, and the Israeli government immediately apologized to Jordan and clarified that Israel is committed to maintaining its peace agreement with Jordan.

But all of this is a smokescreen: Israel is a democracy desperately suing for peace with its neighbors, and at no point in history has initiated a war to expand its borders (or for any other purpose). There is no popular support for attacking or invading Israel's neighbors within the country, and there has never been such a policy in the country's history.

No, it won't be. Israel doesn't want to grant citizenship to the 3 million Arabs who live there, the vast majority of whom would like to annihilate the state of Israel. There is no plausible path forward for Israel to annex Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkarm, etc., without forcibly expelling the Arabs living there - and that would be wildly unpopular, to say the least.

The alleged patch suggests that there is some Israeli ambition to conquer all of the Levant. There is no such Israeli settler movement.

As far as Lebanon, there is no mainstream support whatsoever to settle north of the Blue Line. The article you linked describes the idea as "far-right". I would invite you to talk to an Israeli and ask them what they think about Israel annexing Lebanon.

Gaza is entirely different. There was a centuries-old Jewish presence in Gaza until 1929, when the Jews were ethnically cleansed by an Arab pogrom. That same Jewish-owned land was resettled again in 1946, but the Egyptians ethnically cleansed Gaza again in 1948, and kept Gaza Judenrein until 1967. Israel decided to pull all Jews out of Gaza again in a bid for peace in 2005, but of course we all know how that turned out.

So, the "Shrinking Palestine" graphic is a famous example of misleading Arafat propaganda. The instance you linked displays 4 maps, ostensibly comparing the area of "Palestine" versus "Israel". Each map is wrong:

- 1918: At this time, there was no such thing as a state of Israel, nor had there there any administrative district named Palestine nor any Ottoman territory with borders like these. Instead, there was a British Mandate for Palestine. The British did not claim sovereignty but were instead the custodians assigned by the League of Nations to administer the land until sovereignty was established. A better map looks like this: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/mandate1.gif

- 1947: The map here describes the "displacement of Palestinian inhabitants". Ignoring the fact that the term Palestinian was used to describe the Jews at that time, there was no such phenomenon of "displacing Palestinian inhabitants" through 1947; the land transfers were all voluntary purchases. Furthermore, this map confusingly contrasts Jewish settlements with blue colored empty land, as if to suggest that were somehow Arab land. A better map would look like this: https://i.redd.it/1dn46n9vgmw41.png

- 1960: While this is the first map that depicts a sovereign Israel, it conveniently ignores _why_ any Arab inhabitants were displaced: after the UN approved a division of Palestine among Jews and Arabs, the Arabs started a war of annihilation against the Jews, but ultimately lost. Confusingly, this map does not depict the 156,000 Arabs that remained as Israeli citizens (other than perhaps some in the Galilee?).

- 2015: This map oversimplifies the complexities of the Oslo accords, painting Area C as if Israel claimed sovereignty over it (Israel does not), and continues to obscure the ~2 million Arabs living in the state of Israel.

If you would like a more accurate timeline of Palestinian territory, see her: https://aijac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/mor-768x614....

Side note: I'm always curious what people mean when they say "Zionist" here. It would imply that you're not a Zionist, i.e. you don't believe the Jews are entitled to sovereignty. Either you support destroying the state of Israel, or you have a different definition of Zionist I don't understand.

Controversial, as in almost certainly made up anti-Israel propaganda?

Ryan McBeth presents his thoughtful analysis and debunking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8HWJ2v0R6k

I ended up downgrading my chunky Supermicro server to a cheap Chinese AOOSTAR with an Intel N100 for $199[0], and slapped in an NVMe drive and extra RAM. Since I only need 8-9TB of storage, a zpool mirror worked perfectly for my use case. The build quality is mediocre but the product is more than adequate for my home NAS use case.

[0] https://aoostar.com/products/aoostar-r1-2bay-nas-intel-n100-...

In fact, public opposition to Hamas[0][1] is frequently cited[2] as a primary motivation for the 10/7 attack. Gazans widely viewed Hamas as corrupt and the main reason for their destitution, and overwhelmingly preferred Fatah leaders over Hamas (despite having installed Hamas primarily due to Fatah's perceived corruption).

The theory goes: if Hamas were to embarrass Israel on the public stage with a humiliating attack, this might provoke an overwhelmingly disproportionate response by Israel against Gaza, cementing the public perception of Gazans as the victims in the conflict even in light of the 10/7 aggression - and Hamas as their freedom fighters. This in turn would attract public sympathy for Hamas, bolstering their political prospects in Palestine, meanwhile derailing Saudi peace talks that might have resulted in formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate sovereigns. (Neutralizing peace talks between the two greatest enemies of one of Hamas's greatest benefactors, Iran, could only be viewed as a nice "plus").

[0] https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/survey-sheds-light-... [1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY

@rsync's story from 9/11 is an excellent illustration of the event and absolutely worth the read: https://web.archive.org/web/20041208005336/http://www.cultde...

To say nothing of your other points, MacOS is demonstrably UNIX. It's certified UNIX, in fact: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

Yes, Americans should go back to England to their ancestral Anglo-Saxon homeland, and cede the country they stole from the indigenous people!

Except that the Angles, Jutes and Saxons stole their country from the Romans in the 5th century! So the Americans and English should yield England back to the rightful owners, the Romans, and return back to Anglia, Saxony, and Jutland.

Except the Romans took England from the Britons - and if we can find any of them left, we should cede England back to those truly deserving to rule it, the Britons!

Well, but of course the Britons deposed the true sovereigns of England in the 8th century BC, you know, whoever built Stonehenge. So, let's find them, and restore order to England!

And meanwhile find Koelbjerg Man's relatives and return Anglia and Jutland to them. Identifying the just sovereigns of Roman, Saxon, and North American territory is left as an exercise for the reader.

Rephrasing your argument slightly: "of course the government can't pay only $30. They need to pay $30 for the trash can, and $49,970 for unaccountable value destruction!"

Keeping people employed for no positive economic benefit is literally tantamount to lightning money on fire. You are paying people who would otherwise be creating value elsewhere _not_ to create that value and instead play a useless role intermediating in garbage can manufacture. They would still be buying groceries and burning gas in that productive job, but the difference is that they would also be creating something useful for society.

I find this sanctimonious _I know better than you_ attitude shocking and inappropriately condescending.

Just because these people are earning less than minimum wage, what makes you think you know better than them what's good for them, and that they "don't have a clue"? Why is this "blatantly obvious"? Why are they not rational actors but you are?

Given that so many people are making this choice for themselves, it feels like it's possible that there's demand for below-minimum-wage labor (otherwise, why wouldn't they go and get minimum-wage jobs?).

Disappointed this isn't related to `M-x eww`.

That, and the unfathomable sovereign wealth courtesy of nature's generous bequest of oil.

> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking

(other than yourself)

Short selling on its own is trading on the hope that a stock goes down by borrowing shares from someone who owns them and immediately selling them. Your broker will match you to an owner who is willing to lend the shares if there are any available. To exit the trade, you buy back the shares you borrowed.

Your profit from this trade is the stock's price when you entered the trade minus the price when you buy it back (i.e. you want to sell high and then buy low), less any financing costs from borrowing the shares.

I _thought_ I knew a lot about capital gains taxes until filing my own taxes this year.

After firmly boarding the tax-loss harvesting hype train, I had fallen prey to the intuitively appealing idea that short-term capital losses could offset gains from the sale of a rental property held for less than one year. It turns out that short-term gains from the sale of business property flow (Form 4797) directly to your Schedule 1, without an opportunity for Schedule D losses to offset them.

Now as a result I'm sitting on a 5-figure tax bill and 6-figure capital loss carryforward.

Indeed this is HWFO's core thesis: https://hwfo.substack.com/p/an-illustrated-guide-to-plastic-...

Only if it increases demand for oil.

Realistically, this oil would replace oil that would otherwise have to be pumped from the ground.

I (obviously) lack the data to back up GP's assertion, but anecdotally I've seen very similar things happen in South Brooklyn: the husband working a low-paying blue collar job on the books, while the wife worked at a nail salon off the books; or the husband taking in an NYPD pension while working security off the books, getting paid in cash. In both instances, the families rented out the other units in their buildings, also accepting rent payments in cash (and not reporting them).

In case you're not being facetious, Sam was the single second largest donor to the Democratic Party.

People tend not to react to parking violations by taking the law in their own hands with capricious, violent aggression because in general, Americans tend to be civil and respect the rule of law. Less so in NYC, but still broadly true.

I wouldn't hold your breath, at least in San Francisco: https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/2/20751966/dolores-651-lighthou...