For all the faults of these companies, their founders and CEOs, I genuinely believe the world would have been a bit of a sadder place without companies like Apple and Google. That’s not something I can say about most companies (Microsoft), and honestly, there are companies I think the world would be better off without entirely (Oracle).
I think you’re ignoring the historical context. Jews were being systematically targeted all over Europe, and at the height of the Islamic empire they held ministerial positions in the royal court.
Btw, as a native Arabic speaker, I find it extremely interesting how you’re using ‘dhimma’ to mean servitude, when it literally means those who were given an oath to be protected.
> I think you’re ignoring the historical context. Jews were being systematically targeted all over Europe, and at the height of the Islamic empire they held ministerial positions in the royal court.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Individual Jews held prestigious positions in Europe as well. So what?
> Btw, as a native Arabic speaker, I find it extremely interesting how you’re using ‘dhimma’ to mean servitude, when it literally means those who were given an oath to be protected.
Yes, the literal and practical meanings differ. And of course, relying on others for protection leaves you at their mercy and locks you into a position of submission towards your "protector". Avoiding that reliance is perhaps the primary purpose of Israel.
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.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israeli group B’Tselem have published reports characterizing Israel’s legal framework (especially considering the occupied territories) as apartheid or involving systemic discrimination. I’m not sure what more can be said.
The Amnesty International observer in Gaza reported students who were working together on projects with Israeli students and hoped that were be treated with extreme prejudice. Totally an unbiased organization on the subject.
The mainstream academic consensus is that Jews generally fared better under Islamic rule than in medieval Christian Europe. Scholars also agree that jizya was paid in lieu of zakat (which Muslims paid) and military service.
Of course, this raises the question: if Jews fared better under Muslim rule than under Christianity, why would they leave their alleged homeland and go to Europe, only to want to go back a thousand years later?
Does it raise that question? Or is it rather a hopelessly ambiguous and undecidable question that's really more of a racialist rhetorical argument? The state of Israel was not formed based on a calculation of whether the Ottomans were better sovereigns to serve under than the French, German, or Russians.
I hope I'm communicating well where I'm coming from, which is not that you're wrong (or right) but rather how unproductive this particular species of reasoning is in modern geopolitical discussions.
From the beginning, the founders of the Zionist movement were completely on board with the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians from their lands to establish the Israeli state.
Imagine having access to information about thousands of years of human history, with all its big migrations, the ebbs and flows of civilizations, religions and empires, and still actually thinking one people in particular have some natural claim to a stretch of land.
What if instead we respected state sovereignty and international law for the betterment of all instead of continually stirring up shit to benefit of a few powerful figures?
United States citizens are not indigenous to the region. Native Americans are, and the continuation of the indinginous peoples culture. People who have taken over the area and now call themselves "American" are just laying claim by making up a new identity.
Friend of mine was invited to a wedding of Jewish friends, and commented to them how impressed she was that they'd invited all their Arab friends along to the wedding as well (she was being sincere, not sarcastic). The conversation got rather chilly after that...
If that's true, then great! Then we can do mass ancestry tests to establish the subpopulation that is indigenous to the region of historic Palestine. Let's do it.
It’s extremely regulated, especially conducting research into the ancestry of Israelis. Which makes you question the legitimacy of the research coming out of Israel about this topic, Not to mention that respected Israeli researchers who colored outside of the party line were reprimanded or called self-hating Jews.
What does that even mean? Just because they converted (or were forced) to another religion?
Even the Hebrew recognizes there were plenty of other people living in territory of what is now modern Israel and that the Hebrews violently subjugated quite a few of them.
> the continuation of Canaanite culture
Well culturally they became mostly European, Arab etc. depending on where they lived.
This isn’t accurate. The majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi. The vast majority of them left the Muslim-majority countries during the Arab–Israeli conflict, in what is known as the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.
It is not even remotely the case that scholars accept that the expulsion of Jewish people from MENA was orchestrated by the new state of Israel.
What's especially aggravating about this trope is how useless it is in a discussion about today. It's not true, but if it were, what would that matter? You're still talking about Moroccans, Tunisians, Yemenis, and Iraqis who are not temporarily-embarrassed Europeans with a free pass to move back to where they came from.
A grandparent comment made the claim that most Israelis are from "Europe, Russia, pretty much anywhere but the middle east". That claim is luridly false. Why mitigate such a clownish argument? Acknowledge it's wrong and move on; don't build it into your own argument.
In all your comments, you keep referring to the resistance groups fighting the Israeli occupation as terrorists, which I’m guessing makes you either an Israeli or pro-Israel.
The IOF has been notoriously lying about killing and torturing civilians. Not only that, but even soldiers caught red-handed on video raping prisoners have not only gotten away scot-free but also been allowed to rejoin the army. Is there a reason why we should trust anything such a genocidal, morally corrupt organization has to say?
Please don't trawl through past threads for material to use in the current discussion. It breaks the guidelines about being kind, avoiding cross-examination, and using HN for political or ideological battle. A discussion thread should be able to stand on its own, and it's hard to know whether the surrounding context that applied when the commenter expressed their views in an older thread are relevant to the current topic.
We don't approve of digging up comments from old threads and weaponizing them in the present thread. However, your activity in this thread is not consistent HN's guidelines and intended use.
The most important and pertinent guidelines in this case are these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer...
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
I’m not sure if linking the video would violate HN rules, and I find it hard to believe that you haven’t at least heard about it. There is currently global outrage because the soldier in this video was acquitted and allowed to rejoin the army. The video was aired on Israeli TV and the IOF arrested the military official who authorized the leak.
As someone who spent most of his life in a dictatorship, I don’t think you appreciate how easily a society can slide into a totalitarian state and how apathetic most of the population can become.
It’s also interesting that you served in the U.S. military and didn’t recognize how self-serving and institutionally corrupt it is. I come from a country with an oversized military relative to its government, and the parallels I can draw between its behavior and that of the U.S. Army are uncanny.
However, comparing American society with one of the Middle East does not resonate with me. That goes hand in hand with comparing a military of a dictatorship with one of a democracy.
There is nothing inherently special about Americans that makes them more democratic. I agree we shouldn't compare the U.S. with Middle Eastern countries; they were never democratic in the first place. A more appropriate comparison would be with the German Weimar Republic, where a charismatic leader managed to overthrow democracy.
Many people raised in democratic societies don't fully understand the intricacies of the relationship between the military and dictatorships; they see the military as a tool in the dictator's hand to wield at will. This couldn't be further from the truth. A (strong) military in a dictatorship is its own institution, largely isolated from the rest of society and granted its own perks and benefits. The dictator can wield the military only to the extent that it aligns with the institution's goals. Competent ones try to align the military's goals with their own; incompetent ones get overthrown.
Because of this isolation from broader society, the officers and soldiers believe that what is good for the institution is good for the country. They're not suppressing their citizens; they believe they are protecting the republic.
The U.S. Army is already operating as an isolated entity from broader U.S. society. Monetary corruption is quite substantial—consider the medium- to high-ranking officers and their relationships and revolving doors with defense contractors.
I'm not saying the U.S. is going to become -insert non-democratic country here-, but if we ignore the usual Western caricature of Stalinist-style dictatorships and realize that there are multiple forms of eroding democracy, you'll start to understand why it's not such a far-fetched idea.
Comparisons to Weimar Germany are ridiculous because the state of the two countries are vastly, VASTLY different. Nevermind the fact that we're also in a different, much more interconnected and mixed world than back then.
On the one hand you have a once-proud and powerful state recovering from the most devastating war humanity has ever waged (by that point) that it lost in, which subsequently forced them into paying back massive reparations, sanctions and economic and military limits imposed on it by the victors of said war. Of course a charismatic, populist leader who gives the resentful nation a boogeyman to fight against is going to win.
On the other you have the de facto #1 world power with the most cartoonishly powerful military on the planet that has their fingers involved in every single pie on the planet, which was founded on the principle of democracy some 200 years ago, with strong safeguards put in place to prevent the exact thing that happened with the Weimar republic.
Even pretending like the Weimer Republic's military was anything even resembling what the US military is is ridiculous.
> On the other you have the de facto #1 world power
Wasn't always the case, and honestly it's hard to tell where China stands right now, and it seems like it's not slowing down... if you look at e.g. robotics or drones...
> which was founded on the principle of democracy some 200 years ago
Didn't it need a civil war to actually become a democracy? My understanding was that it was not exactly founded as a democracy. But maybe I'm being pedantic there.
> with strong safeguards put in place to prevent the exact thing that happened with the Weimar republic.
Genuinely interested! What are those safeguards and what do they prevent that happened with the Weimar republic?
With the Weimar Republic, it was specifically section 48 of their constitution which granted emergency powers to pass laws and the normalization of its invocation, paired with a dysfuctional legistlative body that was the only check on that power, that allowed the measures to be taken that culminated in probably unconstitutional passage of the Enalbing Act that killed the republic.
> Didn't it need a civil war to actually become a democracy? My understanding was that it was not exactly founded as a democracy. But maybe I'm being pedantic there.
Definitely think you are being pedantic. By that standard, we're not a "real" democracy right now with felons not being able to vote in many states. That's a valid position to have, but imo not really useful for this discussion.
I'm saying that because I recently read somewhere that it needed a civil war to modify the Constitution and make it a democracy. The article was making the point that it was purposely not designed as a democracy at first.
Which I found interesting, but admittedly not necessarily useful here.
Sure, but it has been for the better part of a few decades. The whole reason US hegemony has spread so far and wide is due to this.
> Genuinely interested! What are those safeguards and what do they prevent that happened with the Weimar republic?
I'm not American so I'm probably getting the tiny details wrong here so please correct me if I'm wrong on any points. A lot of this is going off my memory, so I'm probably getting some dates and such details wrong as well. I'm definitely not including a very comprehensive answer here, as it's a complex topic with a lot of history attached that I don't know too much myself. I'm mostly just a nerd who finds this kinda stuff fascinating, not any kind of expert :)
The big sticking points for the Weimar were that the president wielded much more legislative and executive power than US presidents do. Article 48 let the Reichspresident call a state of emergency without ever involving the Reichstag (Parliament) which basically enabled them to become dictators whenever they wanted. Article 48 was one of the early keys Hitler used to seize power, as a fire in the Reichstag parliament house gave him an excuse to call a state of emergency because of a supposed Communist uprising. He used Article 48 to arrest Communists en-masse on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree which was signed shortly after the fire, which also included many provisions that restricted free speech, movement and other similar civil liberties. I'd recommend further reading up on the Fire Decree yourself, as it's quite interesting as a key turning point in the Weimar turning into Nazi Germany.
In contrast, US presidents cannot supersede congress and decrees are subject to congressional oversight (there probably exist exceptions, so take my words here with a grain of salt). Even emergency powers (such as the ones Hitler used) are much weaker for US presidents and have to go through congressional approval. Even if every single member of congress is a republican, republicans are not a completely united party. A lot of them dislike Trump and have their own agendas they'd prefer to be pushed, and ultimately they have no real reason to bow to the president since they are elected in completely different timeframes, wield different but almost equal power and are also competing with every other member of congress. For example the fear mongering about leaving NATO, there's basically a 0% chance of that happening because it requires a supermajority from congress, despite whatever the President might want. It's a pretty common reason why things like the recently proposed student loan debt forgiveness never end up happening, the president can't just will it to happen.
Another big one is that the militaries work under different philosophies and circumstances between the two, and you can't have a takeover without military backing. The Weimar military was still pretty loyal to the old monarchists and viewed Weimar as a forced state that they were put into under pressure after losing WW1. You have to understand that the whole "democracy" idea was a pretty fresh one at that time for Germany, they only switched from monarchism to republicanism in 1918 after the November revolution.
By contrast, US military as far as I understand it isn't really all that loyal to whoever the current president is, but rather to the constitution. The president might be commander-in-chief, but that doesn't mean he can tell the military to do whatever they want. They still wield power over the military of course, but it's a lot less pronounced than it was in Germany, because the military were loyal to Hitler. If the military leaders who are ultimately the ones commanding the troops don't like the president, there isn't much they can do. Even the national guard is interesting, since it's a split responsibility between states and the federal government. And, again, congress also has a say in many military things, though my knowledge there is for sure lacking so I'd recommend you do your own reading up there.
An example there of the limited power of the president was when Nixon was getting the boot, the secretary of defence James Schlesinger at the time instructed military leaders to run Nixon's order by either him or the secretary of state, because he was worried about Nixon's reaction.
And again, the economic and social situation in Germany at the time cannot be overstated. People were miserable, the country was massively poor and were in a major demographic problem due to the war. Their industry was quickly stagnating due to the aftermath of WW1 and there was a lot of resentment building up in Germany for what they considered to be unfair and harsh treatment from the Allies. They were, to put it charitably, extremely unstable times and it was a matter of time before all of it exploded like it did. If it wasn't Hitler, it would've been the next charismatic leader promising to take revenge on the people who ruined the country (which is massively oversimplifying things of course, but you get the gist)
There are real, significant between Weimar, Italy 10 years before and the USA today.
However the explanation for the rise of Hitler you allude to is woefully incomplete. Hitler and his party didn't get into power by winning the majory popular vote. Instead the Hitler and the Nazis formed a coalition with the monarchists and convinced Hindenburg that they would help restore the Monarchy if Hindenburg helped them take power and granted them new powers.
I'm not going to claim we are necessarily in the same situation today, but I do think it is worth being aware of how this kind of thing can happen.
We should be extremely wary about giving a charismatic leader extraordinary powers, even if that leader promises that power will only be used to accomplish your goals.
You're 100% right, my comment was definitely not meant to imply that the Nazi party's takeover was a simple affair that was as cut and dry as Hitler winning the vote and turning the country into Nazi Germany.
However the way I see it, people (not you, I just mean in general people who seem to believe Trump will bring about the 5th Reich) are probably out of ignorance of the history there also massively oversimplifying and overestimating how much power the president ultimately wields, especially when compared to Weimer-era Germany. People aren't aware that there are safety mechanisms in the US that didn't exist in the Weimar Republic, and as such simply bringing up that "This is exactly what happened with Nazi Germany!" is massively oversimplifying things as well from the other side.
The comment my comment was replying to did this exact thing, in fact, where they equated the election of a charismatic leader to what happened with the Nazis.
I do agree with you though, I personally tend to align with Frank Herbert when it comes to people who want to wield power and rule over others, in that they should be studied and watched closely and carefully and disposed of swiftly if they pull any Hitler-tier shenanigans
> A more appropriate comparison would be with the German Weimar Republic, where a charismatic leader managed to overthrow democracy
This doesn't resonate to me. The conditions in the US are so different than the German Weimar Republic. I mean sure it's possible but without a compelling reason I kind of discard those arguments. The US has had lots of charismatic leaders screwing stuff up and yet still survived.
More importantly, American Exceptionalism is deeply ingrained in our philosophy. I think we're wrong, but it exists. So the general populace doesn't believe this stuff and just makes people sound out of touch. I think when someone is thinking about inflation and rent and mortgages, the idea that they should care about an existential threat to democracy doesn't seem to matter much. That's a rich person's worry.
This is the weirdest thing I have read in a while. I can name multiple more democratic countries, for example starting with the Nordic countries. Just having a multi party system goes far in this comparison.
If you were going to give an example, Switzerland would have been a good one. But they have elements of exactly what I'm talking about, considering there are French, Italian, German quarters of the country.
Nordics have only recently become democracies, <100 years ago.
To clarify, the context of the discussion was the resiliency of democracy, not some dick measuring contest of which country is presently more democratic.
Ok, sure, I can bite the argument charisma matter. I just don't see how Trump is charismatic in any way. He's a spoiled rich kid that throws tantrums when things don't go his way.
First of all, that's how you see it. That's how I see it. But what about someone else?
This comment is going to be a bit rough as I'm going to play act a lot to really drive my point home.
I remember talking to my carpenter friend. He told me he voted for someone like Trump in my country. I asked him why.
My issue with the local politician where I'm from is that he puts all Islamic people into one bucket: the stupid one. I think that's crazy and unfair. He does it with more things. I think his policies are stupid whenever I hear them.
My carpenter friend and I go way back. We met each other when I was 7 and he was 9. He was part of a dizygotic twin. We haven't spoken to each other in 4 years and just vaguely kept in touch.
When he told me that he voted on that bullshit person of a politician, I asked why and he's like: "he's charismatic!"
The thing is. I know this carpenter friend. He might be a lot older but I know him emotionally. He hasn't changed a bit, he just got more mature. But underneath, whenever I see someone from my elementary school, I still see the same child. I also think they still see me that way, that's the impression I get.
The charisma doesn't come as much from that our crazy local politician is actually charismatic. It comes more from the fact that - if I had to guess - from his perspective: politics is boring as hell. It's crazy boring! Why bother! Yea, yea, right to vote. Fine. Fine. He'll vote. Fine.
But if he'll vote. Why not have some fun? Why not vote for someone that wants to throw a bit of a ruckus eh? Why not vote for someone that talks in a way that he talks, that thinks in a way he thinks, that cares about his issues. What are these Islamic people doing here anyway? It's uncomfortable (note: I think this is dumb as hell, I'm just paining a picture - Islamic people should feel comfortable where I live because in my view they are the same nationality as I am).
So in my carpenter's friend mind, this local politician has some charisma. Does he have the best charisma? Don't know but definitely some.
What do other politicians sound like? Nuance 1, nuance 2, policy x, policy y, blah, blah, blah, BORING!
I wish it wasn't as childish as this but I know my friend. It is. He just wants to go to his carpenting job, make something beautiful, be with his wife and kids and call it a day. Thinking for him, like thinking deeply. That's painful. He can do it, but he sure as hell doesn't like it. He likes to do things with his hands.
When I emotionally understood I was shocked. I live in a village close to a big city. I know this village, I grew up here. I'm the odd one out, the intellectual. But I know how "these people from the village think". And my carpenter friend is a very average person in it. So suddenly I realized, this is how many people in my village think.
My suspicion is that something similar happens with Trump. However, with some differences such as: he's a business man! He tells it like it is! We don't take no shit from some ippity uppity democrats! Why should we?! Don't tell me what to do! I will do what I want to do! And all these immigrants are taking our jobs! That's not okay! Trump tells the truth.
Again, I think, that such type of thinking is the dumbest thing ever. Nor do I think that every Trump supporter thinks like this. But there are Americans that think like my carpenter friend. And my suspicion is that they think like this. From that perspective, it's clear to see why Trump has charisma. Because (1) he talks at their level, (2) he talks about their issues and (3) he's a successful business man.
I know we can both make arguments that (1), (2) and (3) aren't true. But dude, remember, for them, thinking is fucking painful.
I'm sure there are more archetypes/personalities that have backgrounds and contexts as to why they find Trump charismatic.
There was that whole civil war thing that happened. And it didn't even matter who won this election, it's clear we are very driven by us/them thinking just considering alone how much purchase you have as a politician when you promise to deport people.
If you are looking at the breadth of history, you would be much more justified in saying that "struggle" and even "violence" is what makes things happen or not. There are political formations, disruptions, rifts, responding to endogenous and external factors. There is now also the extra-political force of capital which is a big player.
What you see, or what you desire, is the so-called "End of History". Where all things are just variations parliamentary-democratic struggle, where in fact globalism is the very thing that assures you of the USA's (very broad) stability. You can allow for a superficial rollercoaster of politics, just insofar as you truly believe (and I bet you do) there is a trajectory and it is good. Good ole' USA.
Its very much like believing either that the world is just 200 years old (again, that whole civil war thing was a big deal), or that we are in a kind Groundhogs Day decade (of the 90s).
I could say a lot, but ultimately I envy you and the world you live in. I understand how it can really sustain you. I hope at least you don't live long enough to see your worldview shattered. You don't, truly, deserve that. Noone does.
- Removing the broadcast licenses of news network that questions him. He's been calling them fake news for years.
- More power to the rich buddies. Not just more money, now they get more control over government affairs. Musk and Thiel are frothing over this.
- Control over women and minorities.
- More power to the theists.
Looks like "comparing American society with one of the Middle East does not resonate with me." will soon become apparent as the parallels start to be clearer.
nobody needs media to tell them this. it comes directly from his mouth. it's hilarious that you think people get their opinions from media. no, just listen to what the politicians say. he said he's gonna do mass deportations? believe him
Im not even a trump supporter but last night he said he was leaving the white house after this term on live TV, so i think the whole trump-wanna-be-dictator thing goes out the window - no ?
"Don't worry, man who famously lies every single time he opens his mouth about even basic objective facts before everyone's eyes, says he won't abuse his powers, so there's nothing to fear!"
Also even going by his own words, what about his "dictator on day one" comments?
I think the concerns about him trying to stay on a third term are way overblown, but outside of that: you can't trust what he says versus to what he will do later.
As someone from the Middle East, I honestly wonder, when Americans say things like that, have they ever read a book, attended a lecture, or even done online research about the history of American intervention in the Middle East? It’s baffling to me that someone would believe that, given America’s track record. I’m not asking sarcastically, I’m genuinely wondering.
reply