The Jews of Morocco (or Baghdad, or Tehran) can't go back. For that matter, surviving Polish Jews were chased out of Poland after WWII. Most Israeli Jews are Mizrahi and most Israeli Jews don't have a 2nd passport.
And, of course, people have a right to self determination. Jews don't have to beg to be allowed to live as dhimmi or as a minority in Europe.
One people from the middle east managed to actually decolonize their tiny piece of land from the Arabs, and people have lost their minds. Every minority in the middle east is under attack (Kurds, Druze, Christians, etc.), and Westerners always side with the Arab colonizers.
I love that you brought up right to self-determination.
However it comes with the bundle with all human rights and international laws, including Prohibion on forced displacement (like Nakhba), full recognition of Human Rights (apartheid state), territorial integrity (settlements), prohibion on genocide (ICC/ICJ is awaiting trial)
The international law has been settled on this: Two state solution, 1967 borders, full rights to Palestinian state, etc.
The vast majority of Israelis wanted the Palestinians to have a state. That's why Barak, Sharon and Olmert were elected. Israel tried twice to negotiate for a Palestinian state, and once gave the Palestinians Gaza unilaterally. The Palestinian leadership did not agree both times, and we have seen what they did with Gaza since 2005.
The problem is that the goal of the Palestinians is not a Palestinian state, it's to ensure that the Jews don't have a state. Otherwise they would have gotten a state in 1947. Except that the Palestinians didn't exist as a polity in 1947, and the West Bank was claimed by Jordan until 1988. The PLO was established in 1964, not to free the West Bank from Jordan, but to undo the 1948 war.
There is no Palestinian opposition that says not agreeing then was a mistake and they should have taken the offer (e.g. in 2008).
The main issue is not that some Palestinians are under the rule of horrible leaders like Hamas, the problem is that Hamas is the most popular party. The Palestinians completely support the goal of undoing the establishment of Israel. And apparently are mostly ok with the principle that it doesn't matter how many lives it costs, as long as Muslim land is freed, i.e. no sovereign Jews.
Basically, Israel has peaceniks and leftists, and even right wing governments were very willing to give land for peace, believing in the two state solution. The Palestinians have never had any peaceniks. The Israeli peace camp was badly wounded by the second intifada and it seems completely killed by October 7th.
The reason JPEGs still rule is because Google Chrome removed support for JPEG-XL, the actually better photo format, because the Google guys who did AVIF decided they don't want competition.
Chrome's JPEG-XL removal was officially due to low usage metrics and prioritization concerns, not just competitive motives - Google's own engineers were divided on the decision, with many supporting JXL's technical merits.
Not everyone wants to deal with maintaining Python and untold dependencies on their web server. A C++ binary often has no additional dependencies, and even if it does they’ll be dealt with by the OS package manager.
I don't understand why people think this is racist. I think 'rayiner is just saying that people have culture. People get their culture from family, school friends, local activities like scouts, church or sports clubs, online communities, mentors. In neighborhoods populated by immigrants from the same immigration wave, local culture can persist for a long time and will only become the same as the average US culture after more than a century.
Religion is likely to stay for longer, and will change to become more like average US culture slower. For example, I don't know if and when a mild American version of Islam will develop which is more adapted to live in harmony with other cultures found in the US.
Racism is when you stereotype people based on their racial characteristics. Calling people of a certain race or ethnicity "groups" instead of "races" when making this judgment doesn't make it not racist.
Putting that aside for the moment, the argument rayiner made, and that you appear to be supporting, is that if you bring too many foreigners into a country, it will change the cultural makeup of that country. It's an argument that seeks to exploit people's fears. It's not a new argument, and it's a largely discredited one. People who make this argument have to anticipate at least the following questions and provide some very difficult answers to them:
1. What exactly is American culture?
2. Is American culture homogeneous? If not, how do you know where immigration will disrupt existing culture, and where it won't?
3. How will you know when American culture is disrupted because of immigrants as opposed to intrinsic forces?
4. How much immigration is too much? How do you know?
5. Which immigrants do you believe are OK to permit into the country, in what numbers, and where?
6. For any potential individual immigrant, how do you know this immigrant will or won't assimilate?
7. How long should an immigrant be given to assimilate? What will assimilation look like for them? What does the bar for "good enough" assimilation look like?
8. Why isn't conformance to our laws sufficient for an immigrant to be accepted?
9. Should new immigrants be Judeo-Christian? If so, how do you square that with the First Amendment's freedom-of-exercise clause? What about all the Muslims already in the USA? Have they adversely impacted America? If so, how?
10. How do you think about the difference between a Black person already in the USA (see question 2) and a new African immigrant?
11. Do the impacts of immigration--particularly of Africans--manifest differently in the Americas than they do in other countries, say, in the UK? If so, why?
12. What about native-born Americans who don't conform to whatever American culture is (see question 1)? Should we eject them?
When I ask people these questions, they invariably end up falling all over themselves. People don't think about immigration rationally; they fall back to primitive "in-group" and "out-group" thinking and engage in "otherism." Sometimes it's religious hatred; sometimes it's racial hatred; other times it's class hatred. I encourage anyone who believes that immigration causes problems figure out for themselves the answers to the above questions and how they would craft a policy that serves everyone better, and not one that just suits their own prejudices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusal...
The Jews of Morocco (or Baghdad, or Tehran) can't go back. For that matter, surviving Polish Jews were chased out of Poland after WWII. Most Israeli Jews are Mizrahi and most Israeli Jews don't have a 2nd passport.
And, of course, people have a right to self determination. Jews don't have to beg to be allowed to live as dhimmi or as a minority in Europe.
One people from the middle east managed to actually decolonize their tiny piece of land from the Arabs, and people have lost their minds. Every minority in the middle east is under attack (Kurds, Druze, Christians, etc.), and Westerners always side with the Arab colonizers.
reply