Most people agree with here because her stance on this is, for the most part, objectively true. This is reflected by the ever increasing number of sport organizations banning trans women from competing in women’s sports. This is the default opinion in society and the world at large. The only people who think otherwise are secluded online echo chambers.
Following this logic, the Gaza protestors theocratic terrorists because they were praised by jihadist terrorist groups
Usually rates that involve small raw numbers get swayed pretty significantly by relatively small changes. For example, Malta had a 3 murders last year, if that number doubled to 6, the homicide rate would increase by 100%. That’s a very significant increase, but does it imply that Malta has turned into a dangerous country? Not really, no. The increase would make it’s rate go from 0.561 per 100k to 1.122 per 100k, that’s around the same as New Zealand which is another very safe country. It should still be noted and discussed because there’s value in that, but my point is that these trends and swings in statistics can be pretty misleading if not put into proper context.
As it turns out most men and women aren’t weird doomer weirdos who spend a considerable amount of their lives being miserable online. Most people want families, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
If anybody read the study, which I highly doubt, you’ll see that this story is highly exaggerated. The actually study showed the sterilization in women went from 2.83 per 100k people per month before Dobbs to 5.31 per 100k people per month after Dobbs. For men, the increase went from 1.03 per 100k people per month to 1.18 per 100k people per month.
Here’s the study for anybody who wants to see it:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2817438
There is a visible increase, but the actual rate is a lot smaller than what this article is attempting to suggest.
That’s actually a very interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing
I added the link, those quotes show why most historians consider the comparison of the Nakba and Jewish exodus from the Muslim world to be a false equivalence
No, you can’t make up claims like this. Your quotes do NOT show that most historians have this opinion. It only shows that those very specific individuals hold this opinion, that is all. In fact the very Wikipedia article that you linked provides examples of historians who disagree with this narrative. If you want to prove that most historians hold this opinion then you’re going to need evidence that actually supports that claim like a survey or a poll.
While there were certainly pogroms, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants were able to sell their possessions and willingly move.
Interesting you say that because the very article you linked disproves your claims:
Various estimates of the value of property abandoned by the Jewish exodus have been published, with wide variety in the quoted figures from a few billion dollars to hundreds of billions.[326]
The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) estimated in 2006, that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued at more than $100 billion, later revising their estimate in 2007 to $300 billion. They also estimated Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100000 square kilometers (four times the size of the state of Israel).[7][327][328][329]
Clearly the situation is much more complex given how the situation differed from country to country, from culture to culture, and from community to community. The sheer scale of this exodus prevents it from being entirely uniform. However, despite that, it still does disprove the notion that the Jewish exodus went all fine and dandy like you’re making it out to be. Even the most conservative estimates range in the billions. That is an insane amount. Even if we become ultra skeptical about this particular estimate and cut the figures by a factor of 10 due to exaggeration from bias, that would still put the amount somewhere between $10 and $30 billion. The amount lost per person on average is somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000. Even if we cut this estimate by a factor of 100, that would still be a high amount. So while some Jews might’ve been lucky enough to sell their property and voluntarily move, that wasn’t the case for many.
This is in contrast to the Nakba, where all 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed by a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign.
Yes, this was bad. I never argued against the Nakba. I’m not having a juvenile competition about which is worse. I’m just proving the point that the violence and ethnic cleansing isn’t one sided. It went both ways.
Whether you recognize it or not, when you bring up the exodus as a reaction to the Nakba with the conclusion that both sides are bad, the point of that argument is a justification for the Nakba.
No, that’s not a coherent line of thought. The point is to showcase that the one sided narrative that you’re pushing for is false. You can’t oversimplify this conflict to good vs bad. You’re trying to spin these historical events in way that disregards so much context that it renders your renditions of them to be historically inaccurate and misleading. You’re doing it now by trying to pretend that the Jewish exodus from the muslim world wasn’t bad at all. That’s simply not true.
When the UN proposed the partition plan in 1947, the Jews rejoiced while the Arabs protested and rioted. This turned in to the 1947-1948 civil war which lead both sides to lose about 1000 lives each. This escalated when the Arab Liberation Army infiltrated Palestinian population areas and started organizing attacks on Jews. This eventually culminated in the Arab Liberation Army blockading the 100,000 or so Jews in Jerusalem. The Jewish army tried to send supplies in but the Arab militants killed all who tried to get through. This event caused the US to withdraw it’s support from the partition plan, which embolden the Arab Liberation Army into thinking that it could end the partition plan all together. In the meantime, there were talks between the Arab countries on militarily intervening on behalf of Palestine. The Jews who were fighting were struggling, but their leadership ordered them to hold ground as much as possible until they could come up with a new strategy that defended the Jews in anticipation of the impending Arab invasion.
That strategy eventually came, and it was called plan Dalet. The plan was to basically secure the Jewish settlements, unify them into a single cohesive unit, remove the Palestinians in between, and declare the independence of a new Jewish state. This was the beginning of what the Palestinians called the Nakba. This plan lasted about a month or two, and on May 14th, 1948, a day before the British Mandate ended, the Jews declared independence. The US and USSR both recognized the new state, but the Arab countries refused and decided to form a coalition army and invade. The Arab world was already hostile to Jews due to the antisemitic hatred that descends from islam, the situation in the British Mandate, and their close relations to Nazi Germany (which were spurred by their mutual hatred of Jews). The Jews in the muslim world faced constant discrimination, violence, and harassment, but after the Arab countries invaded? The rhetoric and propaganda were dialed up to max. This was the beginning of the Jewish exodus from the muslim world.
Back to the invading Arab countries, while their numbers were great, they were pretty incompetent. Armies had poor communication among themselves, there was poor coordination among the different countries, and the leadership made poor decisions. This led the Arab forces to lose ground to the Israeli army. As Israel was making gains, it was basically continuing plan Delat on the new territory that it acquired. Which caused more displacement of Arabs. Meanwhile, the Arab countries increased their propaganda and nationalist rhetoric even more at home to compensate for their losses, which caused even more discrimination, harassment, and violence against Jews which forced more of them to flee. These events kept going until 1949, when Israel pretty much won and signed armistices with the invading countries. The end result? Over 6,000 dead Jews, over 10,000 dead Arabs, over 700,000 displaced Arabs, and around 1 million Jews were displaced. It should be noted that the violence, displacement, and aggression didn’t stop from either the Jews or the Arabs, and things kept going, at a slightly slower pace, until things boiled over again in 1967.
That’s so much history happening in such a short span of time that affected so many people. There was no moral side and there was no unjust cause. It’s a lot complicated than that. But that’s my point. You can’t brush off all this context. You can’t oversimplify this conflict to comic book superhero storylines. You can’t disregard historical information because you subscribed to an inaccurate narrative. Pointing out the complexity of the situation is not a justification of anything, it’s merely pointing out the complicated reality.
If you’re Iraqi, how do you not see that all the different Arab countries have their own interests? While there was some semblance of pan-Islamism and pan-arabism during the British Mandate, it ultimately was a failed project. Jordan, Egypt, and other countries were not operating on the ‘behalf of Palestine,’ and their actions are not the fault of Palestinians.
Back then, the idea of different Arab nations hasn’t really set in yet. There were different Arab states, but the Arab world viewed itself as one big nation and thought that eventual unification was inevitable. That’s why they went to such great lengths to try and help establish Palestine. Each state acted in it’s own interests, yes, but they were all pursuing the same goals. Not to mention that the Palestinian leadership called on them for help, so they didn’t go in uninvited. Of course, you can’t blame this on civilians, but these states did act on behalf of the Palestinian state that they wanted to take place. All of these ideas are less true today because so much time and history has passed that the different states were able to form their own national identities. Even though Arabs still view themselves as one people (this is slowly but surely decreasing in popularity), idea of unification is now seen as farfetched and even as undesirable.
I sometimes get frustrated with the people I argue with and these stuff slip out. However, what you’re saying is a true and your criticism is valid. I’ll definitely keep this in mind. I appreciate your comment.
If you have something better than suggest it, otherwise regulated capitalism is the best economic system we have. Marxism is as shitty as Fascism, it’s not an alternative.
Wtf are you talking about? Communism is literally a Marxist idea. It is the utopia end zone that Marx envisioned for his ideology. Listing off a bunching of other fantasy based ideologies doesn’t give this utopia any more credibility. It’ll never happen. There’s a reason why all the attempts at communism lead to collapse or tyranny.
For now, but they’ve been chipping away at it slowly but surely.
Reddit’s strategy is genuinely brain dead. Just think of the shit they’ve been up to:
Truly the works of geniuses.
Marxist subscribe to such a shitty ideology that they literally cannot defend it with the most brain dead whataboutisms known to man.
Utopias don’t exist and never will, that’s why Marxism, and by extension communism, is such a colossal failure.
You’re so disingenuous and brain dead that it’s literally not worth my time to engage you.
Those weren’t ignored, they were addressed with the last link.
You didn’t address anything. You posted 3 unsourced paragraphs from 3 random historians that contain cherrypicked statements that confirm your biases. This isn’t the smoking gun evidence you think it is. Their opinions have no bearing on the actual events that happened, assuming that these are their opinions or that their opinions are credible, both of which are big ifs. I actually linked over a dozen examples of actual events and their aftermath in over half a dozen countries, including the Palestinian territories. I actually provided context, you provided confirmation bias.
Palestinians are not responsible for the Jewish exodus. Your argument is trying justify the Israeli Apartheid and Genocide by conflating Palestinians with all Arabs/Muslims and conflating all Jewish people with Israel.
The Palestinians had their own ethnic cleansing of Jews, but that’s besides the point. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not contained to just Israel and Palestine. It is much bigger than that, and it has affected way more people. Disingenuous people like you try to box in the conflict to specific parameters to push propaganda fueled narratives, like you brought up about apartheid and genocide. The fact that this is how you’re choosing to frame things just shows that you don’t actually have an interest in the truth, but rather your interest lies in satisfying the narratives you’ve subscribed to. You can’t oversimplify the conflict. You can’t erase the coalition wars the Arabs waged against Israel or the million Jews that were exiled from the islamic world or the havoc that the Palestinian refugees caused in the Arab countries that invited them or so on. If this conflict was localized to just Israel and Palestine then it would be such a big global conflict. It would’ve been thought of in the same light as the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict or the Morocco-Sahrawi conflict… but it’s not… for a reason.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.
I’m not sure what you were trying to achieve here, but I already know the definition of ethnic cleansing.
Forced expulsion of Palestinians has been central to Zionism since the 1880’s
Literally 21% of Israeli citizens are Arab, and another 6% is neither Jewish or Arab.
There are a lot of factors of the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but your conflating of the two as justification or minimization of the Nakba doesn’t work;
That’s not what I’m doing. You’re trying very hard to push this idea, but it’s not going to work. If you actually scroll up and read my original statement, I simply claimed that the violence and ethnic cleansing went both ways… which is undoubtably true.
unless you somehow think all Arabs or Muslims are the same.
No, but the conflict is broader than what you’re trying to make it out to be. Take Jordan for example. This country has taken part in multiple coalition wars against Israel on behalf of Palestine, spent decades supporting Palestine militarily/economically/politically, had governed the West Bank, ethnically cleansed Jews from it’s land, ethnically cleansed Jews from East Jerusalem, lost both to Israel, had taken in a lot of Palestinians, kicked out those Palestinians when they tried to overthrow the government (black September), expelled the PLO to Lebanon, took in Palestinians again afterwards, became the second Arab country to recognize Israel, and the list goes on and on. This is a history that runs deep with the conflict. It’s not just Jordan, but also Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and so on. You can’t pretend that this history doesn’t exist. No, not all Arabs or muslims are the same and not all Jews are the same, but this conflict is interwoven with these identities, at least to a degree.
But it’s pretty clear your racist towards Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims
I’m literally Arab, I’m Iraqi. But I’m sure you know more about Arab world than I do.
when your argument boils down to ‘they are violent primitives and deserve to die,’ just going straight to dehumanization and ignoring all material conditions of Apartheid
When did I do that exactly? I have at no point argued anything even remotely close to that. I merely challenged the brain dead and blatantly false narrative that you and your propaganda driven friends here are harping on, which is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one sided and always has been when that’s very clearly not true. I then proceeded to give examples that disprove this notion. It’s clear you don’t actually have a case to present. You try to sound smart, but once you scratch the surface the facade disappears and you reveal yourself to be a pretentious . If you’re going to lie and put words in my mouth then I have no interest in talking with you.
I mean every city is different. In the case of San Francisco, it could be that city is shrinking and that is driving down prices. However, in the case of the Texan cities, which are all growing, the decrease in rents is indeed due to flooding the market with new housing units:
Though the price housing has gone up considerably which is slowing down construction, which might bring up the rents again. However, this still shows that building new housing units in mass does bring down prices.
Not really; it’s just that I doubt the army will give up power peacefully. Hence civil war or violent revolution.
There’s also a good possibility that one of the high ranking military officers will use the opportunity that will arise from the chaos to orchestrate a coup and put themselves in power.
And in both cases it wouldn’t be strange if Israel decided to expand into Sinai during the chaos.
But think about it from an objective point of view. Israel has already taken control of the Sinai twice. Once from October 1956 to March 1957 and again from June 1967 to April 1982. The second time, it held the Sinai for 15 years. That’s not a small amount of time and Israel even had a few settlements set up. However, it gave all of them up and handed back the Sinai in 1975 as a part of the Egypt Israel peace treaty. This treaty has been active for 50 years, what would Israel gain from destroying it?
Unlike the previous times where Egypt was the aggressor, that excuse can’t be used by Israel if it occupied the Sinai again. The occupation would immediately be seen as unprovoked aggression. Why? Because Israel is the one that’s very clearly hostile and violating the treaty. Egypt has been keeping it’s part of the deal since 1975. It has allowed for Israeli ships to pass through the Suez, it has kept the Sinai largely demilitarized, and it has recognized Israel. If Israel invades, it would be a pariah like Russia when it invaded Ukraine. Unlike it’s war with Hamas or Hezbollah, the US won’t be backing Israel on this. Egypt is not a terrorist group and it’s not an aggressor, and Israel would have blatantly violated a US brokered treaty. Backing Israel would be a massive blow to the credibility of American diplomacy and no US president would risk American soft power for an ally that’s not willing to respect them or keep their words. They would have to back Egypt, or at the very least condemn Israel’s aggression. If the US abandons Israel, you can be sure the EU will follow.
But it actually gets worse for Israel, because all the other Arab countries that established relations with it will immediately sever relations again. Why wouldn’t they? Not only is Egypt a fellow Arab country, but it is the most populated Arab country and a key ally to all the other Arab countries. It’s in their interest to back up their fellow Arab country that’s in the right. After all, if Egypt, who has kept their part of the deal for 50 years, still ended up getting attacked, what’s there to stop the other Arab countries from being next? Clearly Israeli treaties are worthless since they won’t even bother to honor them and they’re hellbent on violent conquest.
You can also be certain that the moment Egypt declares war back on Israel, the Palestinian terrorist groups and the Iranian backed terrorist groups are going to go wild. They’ll attack Israel from every direction. Hell, I wouldn’t even be surprised if the bordering Arab countries joined the war alongside Egypt. I’m sure Syria would love to get Golan Heights back, Jordan and Lebanon would want Israel eliminated as a threat, and the other Arab countries would want a decisive victory to end this long conflict. In the off chance that Israel does win another war against an Arab coalition by itself, it would have gained the Sinai at the cost of all of it’s diplomacy and it would have to start again from scratch.
And what for exactly? A piece of largely inhospitable desert that bares no security threat from a country that’s both peaceful and cooperative with Israel. Israel has already given up the Sinai twice because it doesn’t hold enough strategic value. The things it gained from making peace with Egypt is far greater than anything the peninsula had to offer.
So let’s summarize Israel loses it’s valuable alliances with the US and the West, it loses all the recognition and diplomacy it worked for in the Arab world, it risks fighting another coalition war by itself, and it’ll become a pariah state all for an empty piece of desert that poses no threat, has little strategic value, and it has given up twice before. So I ask again, what would Israel gain from doing this?
I just don’t see it happening.
There’s nothing wrong with the concept of renting. It only becomes a problem when companies are manipulating the market or price gouging. If companies are renting out units are peak market rate, then the issue there’s way more demand than supply. The solution is fairly easy, build more units to flood the market and bring down the prices. It’s a tried and true method. Want to see in action? Look at how Texas managed to get all of its major cities to have a big decrease in their average rents compared to last year:
Austin managed to slash rent prices by 9.3%, San Antonio by 8.2%, Dallas by 3.7%, Houston by 3.2%. It’s not just Texas, Nashville managed to slash prices by 8.3%, Atlanta by 5.2%, Baltimore by 5.5%, and the list goes on and on. What’s the thing common with all these cities? They build more units. They flood the market with so many units that landlords have no choice but to bring rent prices down.
It’s not just rents, housing prices are also down in places that build more:
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/home-prices-falling-cities-where-prices-dropped-most-past-year/
Home prices went down by 11.2% in Miami, Denver by 6.3%, Seattle by 5.5%, Kansas city by 4.9%, and the list goes on and on.
Want cheaper rents and houses? BUILD MORE HOUSES. Can’t do that? Update the outdated zoning laws to allow for multifamily buildings, mixed zoning properties, and higher density. This is the path forward.
Hillary is pretty divisive herself, and there was bound to be another Trump like candidate in the next election who would makes waves. Trump is a symptom, not the source