They believe in Schrodinger’s Jew: that Jews simultaneously control US politics and that US Presidents control Israel.

If that is simple to you, then you really haven’t done any research into the subject. Would you call the native tribes of Oklahoma colonizers after they regained much of their land from the state? Of course not, because it’s not as simple as I’ve described it - imagine a non-native Oklahoman calling the Chickasaw colonizers because suddenly they are in the jurisdiction of that Nation? That’s what extremists sound like, using charged words that evoke emotions from other situations unlike the one described.

I understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and frankly it doesn’t matter how far back either’s claim goes - there are significant numbers of Palestinians and Israelis who have only known the current boundaries and any changes fundamentally alter their identities. Sure, we can go into the genocides committed against the Jews in the region over the past 2000 years that expelled them from the area and gives cause to antisemites that call Jews “white”, or violence perpetrated by Europeans when breaking up the Ottoman Empire and stoking ethnic violence over the past 100. But those claims only matter to the extremists as wedge issues used to divide.

Extremists shouldn’t get to determine the future of millions who clearly want to live peacefully together. No one can bring back the murdered, but Israel, regional powers, the US, and European countries owe it to humanity to rebuild the destroyed cities in the same fashion that we intend to rebuild Ukraine.

Israelis and Palestinians aren’t monoliths and both groups generally want to coexist peacefully in a region they both have legitimate historical ties to. Yes, to stop the current fighting a ceasefire is needed. However, a ceasefire is not going to solve the problem of the IDF’s unrestricted killing of civilians as bystanders in response to Hamas directly targeting civilians as part of their genocidal aims towards Jews (in general).

Just because the Israeli government has more power doesn’t suddenly make Israelis the “baddies.” There’s a reason why Palestinians, and other regional groups, want Hamas gone and look to the West Bank for the PLO to lead the future of a Palestinian state. Hamas takes actions without caring what happens to the people of Gaza as long as they get to kill some Jews (and inspire their killing globally) and provoke disproportionate retaliation from Netanyahu to feed back into their system of civilian oppression.

The moment lasting peace settles in the region, Netanyahu can’t continue to avoid his personal legal problems, Hamas can’t reach their goal of a global Jewish genocide, and Iran can’t continue to destabilize the region and avoid its own internal instability. The fact that weapons manufacturers don’t get to profit from this stability is also a global win.

The goal is to prevent the killing of Palestinian civilians and to restore their self-governance where they’re settled- also to rebuild. It should be fairly obvious that Hamas is the biggest roadblock. The IDF can then focus on right-wing settlers breaking Israeli law and restore those settlements back to Palestinians in their new state.

carried out by apartheid settler colonialists who want to kill every single Palestinian on this planet

This is the kind of hyperbole that makes it real easy for others to label critics of the actions of current Israeli leadership antisemites.

No, Israelis are not trying to exterminate all Palestinians; Yes, Netanyahu does not care about limiting collateral damage when targeting suspected Hamas militants.

If you’re passionate enough to comment, be passionate enough to communicate unambiguously.

Be angry at the person leaving out "Report: " from the article in this post, not Axios. It’s very clear that Axios is reporting on private conversations from its title and contents.

Kindly explain how a parent has a greater stake in our nation’s future. A tangible stake - not some metaphysical “blood ties” or “descendants” stake that they have no tangible relationship with. Make sure that your explanation also doesn’t accidentally give slaveholders additional rights for the extra “property” they have.

Bro, you inserted yourself into a conversation where someone claimed that the shooter was cosplaying a Republican and, inexplicably, defended them. The only person you should be getting butthurt with is yourself instead of dropping the inevitable “both sides” shit 🤣

I’d point you to the assassin of John Lennon - he is/was a big Beatles fan but murdered John anyway because of who John became. That still doesn’t have anything to do with the parallel argument, in this case, of the likelihood that Mark was pretending to be a Beatles fan or not.

Actions do speak louder than words - this would-be assassin registered as a Republican. The conspiracy theory that he was trying to affect a Primary makes no sense based on timing alone, let alone there not being an iota of evidence indicating he wasn’t a Republican. Republicans created the environment for this kid to do what he attempted to do and they should own up to their culpability rather than rely on bots and useful idiots to blame everyone but themselves for this problem.

Apparently it’s not uncommon

You know what’s incredibly more common? Being an actual Republican and voting in a Republican Primary.

Everyone loves a harmless conspiracy theory, but this theory is anything but. Unless the shooter specifically admitted to this conspiracy theory, peddling this bullshit is reckless. About as stupid as child molesters in pizza place basements that don’t exist.

But you are making a choice: you’re choosing to only let observable facts influence your beliefs. Everyone is an atheist by default, and most of them are then told to believe what they’re told from birth, but at some point people make a conscious choice on how information is prioritized. Humans aren’t read-only and I would say it’s a safe bet that most people have the opportunity to influence their own beliefs and act accordingly. Obviously if someone is abused and doesn’t develop mentally, then yeah, don’t hate the person but don’t necessarily give up on helping that person develop, either

You need to understand that most people’s understanding of the conflicts in the Middle East started on October 7, 2023.

No, Romney made that rhetorical statement and Blinken looked flabbergasted that the statement was even made.

Romney’s statement was made in the context, ironically, that certain social media “news” is made in the absence of any historical context as appeals to emotions instead of facts. The fact that the Twitter poster made an obvious cut to give “context” to Romney’s strange claim is an example of what Blinken said is wrong with certain social media news “sources”.

TikTok ban discussions have been going on for a long time, well prior to Hamas’s October attack, and it’s a distortion of reality to claim motives otherwise.

Romney should not be a role model for anything other than uncompassionate conservatism. If this type of “news” article is indicative of how many people get their information, then reality really is fluid for a whole lot of people and that’s scary. Though it’s hardly unsurprising with the amount of obvious propaganda sites posting “news” about the conflict that people take as gospel.

Could it be in the realm of possibility that people in Michigan, and other states, view the conflict in the Middle East as more complicated than “Israel bad”? People are capable of viewing the actions of the current Israeli leadership as anathema while still understanding the rationale behind continued military support.

Using loaded language like “infested” only raises questions on other biases coloring opinions.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment clearly state that the federal government has more, read: supreme, power over the states. You may be misremembering that the phrase “nor prohibited by it to the States” exists in the amendment. Basically, a federal law today will immediately and automatically nullify a 200 year old state law - precedence nor time of the state law will survive a Supreme Court review even if all 9 Justices are Federalist Society lackeys.

How many years of Israeli occupation have to go by until it is no longer considered occupation and Israeli land? There has to be a dividing line between the expulsions 1400 years ago and that time where the land became Palestinian, no? Palestinians and Israelis (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, non-religious, etc.) have an equal claim to existence - many of those that want to disband the colonist state of Israel are also advocating genocide. Genocide doesn’t always mean killing - it also means the destruction of national identity. It’s obvious that a two state solution is necessary to stop and avoid future genocide of both peoples. “River to the sea” never meant coexistence and I think it’s about time people stop advocating for a counter-genocide with that slogan.

Except these warrants aren’t granted for “any reason” and I’m fairly sure you know that as well. Like I implied in my comment, the government is not some monolithic entity where all government employees conspire to deprive you, John Q. Public, of all of your rights.

My claim is only that no matter how well implemented a program may be, certain individuals will still claim corruption where none statistically exists. The whole point of our society is to implement laws, execute those laws, evaluate if those laws are having a positive affect on mitigating the problem it’s meant to solve, and change the law to address shortcomings or unnecessary bits.

Of course we should all be skeptical of the process, but arguing against change because we don’t feel like the results are going to be what we like is irrational. Past behavior is important to keep in mind but let’s not exaggerate and wax hyperbolic. It’s simple: If our elected officials aren’t implementing and reevaluating laws based on evidence/results, then it is our responsibility to remove those officials from power. If the roadblock to removing those in power are your fellow citizens, it’s your responsibility to help gain consensus in your community.

Tearing down, or dismissing, the system is not reasonable; that’s partly how in US politics we’ve become so polarized. People don’t have patience anymore for conversation or debate; they want immediate and immaculate change with 100% certainty and that’s unrealistic. Change is gradual and is never going to get it right out of the gate.

So come on, if you’re French, engage with your community and your elected officials to ensure that this law is implemented (or retracted) as honest as possible and stay engaged. Opinions without reasonable action is how fascism takes hold. I’m not sure how this law will turn out but I’m willing to be surprised that it gets implemented honestly. And if you’re not French, well, then I’m pretty sure yours and my opinions on how that citizenry chooses to govern is none of our business (outside of gross universal human rights violations and this is nowhere near the same galaxy).

When people hold conspiracy theories about the government being some monolithic engine of evil, or people who don’t believe government should exist because “muh freedoms”, any time an arm of the government is used as a check they just don’t care. It doesn’t matter that their beliefs have no basis in reality - they will dismiss any evidence contrary to their beliefs because it’s dangerous to their worldview. It wouldn’t matter if 1,000,000 warrants are denied for every 1 warrant approved - the one approval is all the evidence needed to claim tyranny.

In the English speaking world, it is a slur regardless of whether or not you use it as slang for a cigarette. Do you really believe that using a word is more important than making sure others don’t feel marginalized? Emotional intelligence is partly about empathy and using that to recognize harmful behavior. A sign of maturity and positive personal growth is realizing that your behavior causes others to feel unwelcome and correcting that behavior. It’s fortuitous that, in a thread about signs of poor education, we are having this discussion. Criticisms are learning experiences, not made with malice; malice is purposefully saying something harmful and celebrating it. Will your life truly be ruined by substituting that word so you don’t accidentally hurt someone?

If you knew saying that word could cause pain in others, why would you say it and further celebrate it? OP may not have meant their question this way, but your comment is how I identify people with poor emotional intelligence.