22122

i think the answer is the unlikelihood of having life get started in the first place, we have a better idea of how life evolves than how it began. i think the reason it happened so early on earth's history isn't because it is common, but because something about the conditions of the early earth was uniquely well suited for it to happen

do you think that israel would be under threat of destruction if they ended the occupation of those territories? if so, how did israel gain those territories in the first place? if not, why does israel use that as an excuse for the continued occupation?

the early zionists had a similar attitude towards arabs as netanyahu and co do today. but for them it was more from a jewish power colonialist angle rather than the victimhood angle that netanyahu is obsessed with

this just isn't true, jews didn't have it any worse than non jews in european history, they just like to dwell on their historical instances of suffering. One could argue that jews had it better than the native peoples around them because their population swelled at a higher rate over the duration of their stay, and historically, population growth tracked resource availability.

interesting, because a common excuse given for israel's continued occupation of Westbank, Golan heights, and Gaza strip is that without those territories israel would be under threat of destruction by her arab neighbors. which is it?

why should the arabs have accepted the partition? what was the rationale behind the partition, who made the decision and what right did they have to make such a decision, what was the justification for a zionist state to begin with?

the arabs made war after the zionists started the nakba, if zionists weren't so aggressive the arab states likely wouldn't have sent any soldiers to fight, just taken economic and diplomatic measures.

in creating, perpetuating, and expanding israel, the zionist jews betrayed the ones who had protected them for so long, hosting them on lands that for the most part never even belonged to the jewish people to begin with. israel is the only colony turned state in history to have been created by a people who were previously stateless, this fact alone should raise suspicions about the true history and legitimacy of that state.

i am arguing against the idea that the romans kicked out all or most of the jews from palestine. I am not suggesting that no jews were ever expelled or sent away as slaves. I think the historical record is clear that the jewish diaspora would have existed even if not a single jew were ever forcefully removed from palestine. I also don't understand how it is relevant to the israel palestine conflict, palestinians aren't romans, they're the native inhabitants of the land, whatever really happened to jews in palestine 1500+ years ago is hardly relevant to any political disputes ongoing today. The fact of the matter is that palestinians can trace their ancestry to the land as far back as they can trace their ancestry, meanwhile most israeli jews arrived in palestine within the past 100 years, and before that their line was living elsewhere as far back as they could trace. There are palestinians that were kicked out in the nakba that are still alive today and hold the keys to their homes that they were dispossessed of. Did the zionists have that kind of verifiable and particular claim to the land when they came over?

Islam allowed jews to own land, just like how it allowed christians to own land.

if there were several jewish revolts until the 600s that is evidence that they did not result in significant expulsions. the fact that the region became majority christian is not evidence of a major expulsion of jews and subsequent replacement by christians, likely they mostly converted just like how most christians would end up converting to islam. In any case it wasn't muslims who expelled them so they can't take it out on the indigenous muslims of the west bank.

there are records of jewish presence across the medditerranean region and the near east for centuries prior to the first roman jewish war

islam wasn't the only religion to have an empire. and islam spread through voluntary conversion, for hundreds of years the subjects of the islamic empires remained majority the pre conquest religion. also no muslim empire ever conquered indonesia and malaysia, yet they are two muslim majority countries today.

they were merchants and artisans part of an international diaspora spanning thousands of miles, it was really an economic role that they chose to assume. they weren't victims of a racist occupation like arabs in the west bank today.

some would say that they were kicked out of their homeland so it wasn't really a choice but there's actually no evidence that this ever happened. for one thing, jews have always lived in judea and there's no record of them being expelled from anywhere there except the city of jerusalem in the 2nd century by the romans after they tried another revolt. there was a huge jewish diaspora before that revolt and even before the 1st century revolt. the jewish diaspora was likely primarily a result of economic migration and subsequent success of jewish communities in certain economic roles as a diasporic community spanning many different lands.

if you are american, cleaning your house involves going head to head with the zionist lobby which works for israel's interests. so i'm afraid the matter of israel can't be avoided here.

Hacker News is an American website. Hacker News allows political discussion. Israel is very relevant to American politics, many would argue too much so, but in any case, why shouldn't it be discussed here?

in historical jewish states, how did they treat the people they conquered? not to mention, most jews in the muslim world lived well outside of their homeland in palestine, and that's not because the muslims pushed them out, they were there before the muslims conquered, and many times they helped the muslims conquer because they would rather have lived under muslim rule than christian rule.

who gave the jews a state? people think it was britain but britain agreed to the balfour declaration, an agreement made between zionist bankers and the british state which involved upholding the rights of the indigenous arab population and which did not involve the creation of a jewish state. how do you think jews got their state regardless? did britain change their mind and decide to give jews more than they agreed to give them?

not just the politicians, also the media outlets that cover for them, and the zionist political donors who fund them.

as long as people keep voting for politicians that are complicit with pro zionist policies

what does it tell you that the jews who were accomodated from the start by muslims in lands stretching from maghreb to transoxiana are now fighting muslims like muslims were their enemy since day 1? the jews who the muslims took in after the christians kicked out are now pushing for christian armies to fight their wars for them in muslim lands? i would say christians are the most innocent, christianity is the real religion of peace, although christians themselves are a mixed bag, muslims are par for the course, it is a religion of conquest, but it tends to conquer fair and square as is normal throughout history, while jews are the least innocent, parasitizing and betraying the nations.

yeah, computers are better at search, humans are better at reasoning, the dichotomy continues on.

the crusaders wanted the holy land to belong to christians, not to jews

its more like 'dont get them while they are young'. when society teaches children from an early age that public nudity is shameful, they are going to grow up having an aversion to it. i doubt this aversion is innate, its taught by society. on the other hand, preferring the feel of nakedness is going to be an innate preference i believe.

those limits can be removed by changing societal norms, but feeling constrained by clothing is something that someone can not change about themselves.

morality is fundamentally based on opinion. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem, Hume writes: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."

the quran also has a math error in its inheritence laws: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/98rpd8/qurans_mat...

Corelation does not imply causation. Maybe its that people who are prone to depression have some factors that make them less likely to believe in religion.