They said BLM because blacks are an oppressed minority. Once whites become a minority, are enslaved, have all their property stripped away from them, their families torn apart, a war fought to free them, their former owners reinstated to their black privilege after the war, are subjected to Chad Crow, lynching's, burnings, beatings, ghettos, voter suppression, white-on-white violence due to lack of opportunity brought on by black privilege, then we can talk about WLM. — James Riley

Alright so how do you want us to convey this truth to our nation's students? You want all those newly-anointed poor black victims to be thinking "never forgive, never forget." You want to build up a people? Maybe focus on the ways that they've succeeded.

We can teach them the facts of atrocities, sure, but the teaching of history is never "just the facts."

If you offered me a job for $100/hr it'd be because you believed it'd help you make a profit, — Judaka

Who makes that rule? Capitalism? Who says I can't hire you for any number of reasons? Maybe I just like you and want to offer you an awesome, easy job. Maybe I'm due to die in a year and am looking to spread out my wealth. Or maybe I'm mad at my dog and want someone else to watch him ASAP. In a capitalist society people are free to spend their money how they like. It may be because I'm making $200/hr elsewhere but not necessarily.

The employer has absolute authority to determine what he does with his business and what shall be done with the profits, again, a basic principle of capitalism. — Judaka

This is for small businesses, not big ones. Public companies have boards of directors.

It's fine that employees don't get to make any decisions at the companies they work at, ideal even. — Judaka

Have you never met a shift supervisor or a manager?

What are your priorities? How do we measure success? — Judaka

My priorities are just to have a functioning system where small businesses started by individuals can get off the ground and some number of them are successful. I really just want you to present a functioning alternative if employee-employer relations are immoral as you've been saying.

I would be strongly against a system which banned individuals from starting businesses.

If employer-employee relations can be that the employer has absolute control and authority and agency and the employee is just there to receive a check then that's how we might arrive at the conclusion — Judaka

The employer is paying the employee for a job. If I offer you a job for $100/hr to watch my dog am I being oppressive? Would I be making you my slave now? Is that how jobs work? I'm sure there's a job to be a slave out there but most aren't. I feel like you're talking about low-level jobs here, is that it? You're talking about the type of jobs.

I feel like part of this is that you just don't like how certain employers treat their employees which is natural; employers can be dicks! Not all are though.

If we were to force workplaces to be democratic then we wouldn't have the same capitalist way of starting a business. — Judaka

Ok, explain to me how businesses get started then. Give me a better model.

I can't think of any organizations where total newcomers can join and be regarded as equals with equal governing/decision-making power with 20 year veterans.

Your example of starting a capitalist business and then hiring a single person and having it all be ruined is stupid. — Judaka

Why is it stupid? Did I misrepresent your position somehow? Does your employee not deserve equal representation? Tell me what was wrong with it.

I understand where you're coming from.

Lets take an example and make things a little more concrete. Lets pretend you want to start a business, well in order to do that you need capital.

Lets say for instance that you make a $30k investment to start a small business and then look to hire an employee, lets say a web designer. Under normal capitalist conditions, the founder can just agree to a price with a web designer and the web designer will do the project for payment. However, the web designer doesn't get a say over how that $30k investment is to be invested unless they want to negotiate something extra.

But lets imagine this is a forced democratic workplace and if you want to hire that web designer you need to give him equal governance power. Now you're an equal to him and -- whoever he is -- he gets an equal say in how that investment is used, which was originally your money. Maybe his friend has a really cool investment idea and he wants to take $15k from the treasury and use it for that. He's an equal partner, why can't he do that? You're not the boss. You still want to start this business?

You may decide to make the web designer a partner, but that's a whole other issue.

Sorry the modern workplace isn't a democracy, but neither is a family.

but it is not in their hands because of any other reason than the fact that they own the business. It's theirs to run into the ground incompetently or sell or do whatever they please with. If the business is better off this way then that's an argument you could certainly make. — Judaka

Yep, it's their responsibility and their money to either win or lose. If things go south ideally - under normal capitalism - they'd be losing the most money. The worst that can happen to an employee is that they get fired, but if you're an owner you can just be underwater very large sums of money when business goes poorly.

I'm not really sure about that, I guess some would and some wouldn't but I couldn't guess what the majority of people would think was ideal. — Judaka

Yeah, some will and some won't. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone simply wanting to collect a paycheck and go home and spend time with their families. The problem is if that's all you're relying on for income it puts you in a vulnerable position. I will say from experience it's not easy to get people actually involved in governance decisions. People would rather be doing other things including selling their equity in that project for something more lucrative.

If you're poor and in a low-level position and looking to move up in a certain company/project, then have an honest talk with the management or your superior. Here the burden is on them to be honest about advancement prospects. That is capitalist ethics.

I'm struggling to determine the tone of your message, are you saying it's a matter of earning your way, having the suitable expertise, the rights of the founder or something else? — Judaka

I mentioned all of these.

For those who see the employer-employee dynamic as immoral, I guess they'd want to shut it all down, not just make their own business that does things differently. — Judaka

:100: - and that's their problem. Shutting down the employer-employee dynamic is pure paternalism and its advocates imply that people are incapable of making their own decisions. Should I be forbidden from offering you a job or you offering me one? We can always negotiate the terms.

On what basis would it stop being ridiculous for a worker to have a say? What about after they've been at the company after a certain period of time or other pre-requisites for having a say? — Judaka

There's a difference between "having a say" - which the worker should always have, and e.g. deciding where to open the next branch or what we do with the corporate treasury. The decision-making process is simply going to come down to the corporation/governing body.

Socialism doesn't avoid this issue. In every society there's going to be more knowledgable people/better workers and less knowledgable people/less experienced or worse workers. You cannot avoid some measure of hierarchy.

The business is owned by the employer, the employee offers the employer labour for wages. — Judaka

We shouldn't treat this rigid line about ownership like an inevitable feature of capitalism. I've worked for start ups where I have equity in the project which makes me a part-owner of it and some measure of decision-making power. Then again, yes, the bulk of the decision making power is going to come from the founders and the higher ups because they're actually the ones driving the project and they're doing a lot more work than me. They also know a hell of a lot more than me or the vast majority of people for that matter about the project.

The employee may be satisfied or dissatisfied with their wage, they still have very little or no control over anything to do with the business that employs them nor over the type of work they'll be doing. — Judaka

Well do they even want governance control? When I worked at a department store in college all I wanted was to collect a wage and leave. We shouldn't immediately conclude that everyone wants to spend extra time in meetings or learning about potential decisions or projects in the company (especially ones in other areas of the company where you're not involved.) If you are interested in something more you'll probably have to work your way up or talk to management.

In all organizations you get more decision-making power when you climb up the ladder. But you also take on more responsibilities which can be seen as restricting and will take up your time. The idea that workers must be entitled to strong governance authority simply upon agreeing to do work for the employer is ridiculous. How much decision-making power are we to give a complete newcomer who just joined up? Should his voice be equal to the founder? As a founder you're the one who started it and gets to make the general rules. If you want to start a business and make it a complete democracy where anyone you hire gets an equal voting opinion then go for it.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is the contract made between a private citizen who owns a place of production with another private citizen to exchange labour for a wage. — Judaka

Labor contracts are a feature of capitalism, but hardly the single defining one. In any case, a lot of work today is remote and online so this "place of production" is becoming an anachronism. Work often doesn't need to be done in an office. In many cases employees just need their own computers and network to get work done, this isn't a 1950s factory. Work is changing very rapidly and increasingly virtual. The worker may be doing work for an employer, but the worker is not always using the employer's "means of production" nor is he reliant on the employer to put a roof over his head.

but the power in the relationship is always with the employer. — Judaka

What if there's many employers and few employees? What if the employees are strongly organized? What if they're financially secure and don't need work? This is definitely not true. If the wages aren't there you're not going to recruit the right people. There are definitely certain labor markets where things are tilted in favor of the employee.

This is a money problem, not an employee-employer problem - if you're poor you have less power. It's not about who the employer or employee is.

What's the meaning of autonomy if they don't have running water, they have restrictions on caloric intake, they can't fish as they wish on there shore, etc? That's not "autonomy" in any sense of the word. — Manuel

They do have running water. There's a ton of misinformation out there. They're free to build their own facilities but the money gets mismanaged by the governing authorities. Gazans are free to go fishing but I don't know every fishing regulation there is.

I think that if you have back WB and Gaza, things would get much better. I frankly don't understand what Palestinians would do to Israel without facing massive and severe repercussions. The Palestinians aren't getting an army so I don't think there is too much to worry about. But there will continue to be much to worry about if the occupation continues. — Manuel

Yes, I'm sure the Palestinians would be happy if Israel gave them all of the WB. But why would Israel do that without a concrete guarantee that the Palestinians have given up further territorial claims? Also it would mean kicking thousands of Jews off of land that they've lived in for hundreds if not thousands of years.

I get it, you want to believe that all the Palestinians want is a state of their own. That's a normal, healthy assumption that many outsiders to the conflict would make. Unfortunately it's just not true - it's not reflected in politics and it's not reflected in polls either. It's a nice belief and I wish it were true. In reality, there is a strong desire to see Israel gone. Vanquished.

"Few still support a two-state solution. Ironically, while some attribute Palestinian rejection of Trump’s plan to its new limits on the traditional two-state paradigm, most Palestinian respondents now reject that model as well. Asked to choose “the top Palestinian national priority during the coming five years,” two-thirds (66%) of West Bankers in this poll pick “regaining all of historical Palestine for the Palestinians”; a mere 14% choose “ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, to achieve a two-state solution.” Gazan respondents, surprisingly, are a bit more moderate: 56% want all of Palestine, while 31% opt for the two-state solution."

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/palestinian-majority-rejects-two-state-solution-backs-tactical-compromises

You know what - maybe this would change if Israel just withdrew from the WB. I doubt it. But it's unfair to ask Israel to make that such great concessions without a guarantee of peace. Palestinians gaining control of all of the WB just places more Israeli cities in range for Palestinian rockets. We already see what happens with border towns like Sderot where there's bomb shelters everywhere and the place has a massively high rate of trauma and PTSD. I've been there and it's not a place you'd ever want to be or grow up in. The playgrounds structures serve as bomb shelters which they have everywhere around the city.

I'm sure if people were throwing rocks at your family you'd laugh it off too. Rocks can't hurt people lol.

The reason its only rocks is because of the blockade.

Sure, I'll sign the petition so that weapons can be imported into Gaza which can then be used against Israeli citizens. /s

And this is the part where you say "not my problem."

This whole "victim blaming" charge when it comes to international affairs just doesn't mean anything to me. Aggressive, ruthless powers virtually always portray themselves as victims and this extends far outside the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hutus slaughtered Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands with machetes because they had been victimized by the Tutsis previously... so I guess blaming the Hutus here is also victim blaming? Who are we to condemn the victim? The Tutsi perpetrators were just getting their comeuppance, right?

and elected Hamas, they were punished for having the audacity of voting against Israeli interests. — Benkei

Israel withdrew from Gaza in '05 and they elected Hamas in '06.

But yes, if you elect a government bent on the genocide of Jews within Israel then you're going to get a response and it's not going to be a positive one.

I guess in your view of the world, prisoners have total autonomy within a prison yard. — Benkei

It is a problem of their own doing based on their governing body's inability to accept the existence of Israel.

Oh sorry, is Israel committing genocide towards its LGBTQ population?

But by all means none of this matters.

It's not that I don't think Israel shouldn't have peace, it's that it should be done representing in a democratic matter, not by leaders who don't represent the will of the people. — Manuel

If this were an option it would be great, but states always need to deal with the leaders of other states whether they're authoritarian or democratic.

They would probably be much less hostile if Israel gave back the occupied territories and give Palestinians total autonomy within these areas. — Manuel

The Palestinians already have total autonomy within Gaza. It's to the point where Hamas can hunt down gay people and those seeking peace with Israel and either arrest or execute them and Israel won't do anything. Hamas controls day to day life there, Israel just controls the borders. In the WB too it's autonomous rule in the Palestinian part of the region & even in the Israeli part Palestinians are governed by the PNA. There's more Israelis than Palestinians in some parts of the WB so I have no idea why that all needs to be ceded to the Palestinians. Before Israel took the area it belonged to Jordan.

Nonetheless, I'd still be down to ceding control of Gaza and the WB if it meant peace. But this just isn't the final aim of the Palestinians and to think it is portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict.

You really need sources? I'll give a few. They're mixed in with Radical Islam to make it look less blatant... — Manuel

I'll hear about criticism or prejudice towards Muslims, but I was asking about Arabs earlier. The difference is that Arab is an ethnicity and there are Arabs of all religious backgrounds who live all around the world.

Islam is open to legitimate criticism. Being an Arab is not.

The idea here is Hamas=Radical Islam, hence everything ugly Hamas does is because of Islam. — Manuel

Well that's obviously wrong. I think there's just so much misinformation out there. Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic organization but the people who primarily suffer due to that are the Palestinians living under them. Sure the Israelis face bombs and threats, but I'd much rather be fighting that than living under it.

The anti-Semitism in the Arab world against Israel, is overwhelmingly due to Israel's history in the region. You know this: the wars with Lebanon and Egypt and Syria, the way Palestinians are treated, etc. — Manuel

I firmly disagree with this. Jews have been living under Muslim leaders for around 1500 years in the Middle East, and over that time there has been a long history of subjugation and abuse including plenty of massacres & repression depending on the ruler. Anti-semitism in the Arab world did not only begin existing in 1948, there's a very long history there. Israel currently is also at peace with a number of its Arab neighbors including Egypt whom it gave back Sinai to in... 1988? It's been some time since these countries were actually at war.

There are Gallup polls that measure this type of thing that I'd be happy to show you if we wanted to pursue this further. These polls reflect deep-seated attitudes that extend far beyond Israel.

And radical Jews (settlers) are the main reason as to why Israel is so vilified. — Manuel

Vilified by who? The Arabs? The western world? I don't deny that settlers in the WB can be provocative, but I don't see them as being the main reason that Israel is vilified. You also have to remember that there has been Jewish communities in the WB going back thousands of years.

In my experience very few anti-Semites are pro-Israel. Israel is such a perfect lightening rod that I don't see why anti-Semites would avoid that opportunity. It's just so easy.

What disparaging comments have western leaders and prime ministers said lately about Arabs? Could you mind citing a few examples? Anti-semitism is rampant across the muslim/arab world.

There is no shortage of criticism of Hamas or radical Islam at all. Some of it has merits, sure. But a lot of it is just racism. — Manuel

A lot of criticism of Hamas is racism? Why would you say this about Hamas but not apply it to Israel and anti-Semitism? Radical muslims are universally despised even among other Muslims.

Likely the most anti-Semitic people in the world are those who "support" Israel. Quite ironic. — Manuel

Yeah, sure, or maybe the anti-Semites are the ones who are actually attacking Jews worldwide over Israel's actions. Or the ones who are extremely critical of Israel while saying nothing of Hamas.

And if so, how can the Palestinians, be it the PA or Hamas or whoever, also approach this? Can they actually make and keep peace with Israel and then face the fact that there's Israel and they have all these problems... — ssu

I'm convinced that there is some sort of grassroots Palestinian movement in Gaza that's actually interested in peace and may in fact not want to live under fundamentalist Islamic rule (who'd have thought?) I would love to see an uprising in Gaza where the population comes together and overthrows Hamas, but Hamas has all the power so I don't see this happening anytime soon. Their deep-seated opposition to Israel's existence is made clear in their founding documents. I just don't think peace is possible with Hamas in power.

When you're dealing with the PA there's at least a glimmer of hope since they're secular, but peace with Israel is just never a popular move politically (by peace I mean renouncing further territorial claims as this is deeply unpopular). I know for a fact that the WB is doing better than Gaza and the people are a little freer. I don't know if the situation in the WB is in need of immediate international attention. Sure, WB isn't doing great but there's actually a lot of places that are doing worse.

I tell you about how Hamas arrests citizens for attempting to make peace through establishing connections in Israel, and your response is that it was 'all done by the books.' I can't imagine anyone who isn't a diehard Hamas supporter saying this. I just wonder how a white Dutchman becomes a diehard Hamas supporter.

You spent 58 pages justifying it by comparison which is a terrible justification. — khaled

For the purposes of our discussion we can start with the premise that what Israel did in '48 was wrong. I'm fine with entertaining that idea. Or that Israel was wrong for launching rockets into Gaza. So what then?

Sorry, I just find it meaningless to just point at a state and be like "that's wrong." Ok, what are you going to do about it?

It's a state, it's not an individual. It's a complex network.

Point is half of what you right here takes the form of "The Arabs did that to us so it's fine for us to do it to the Arabs" — khaled

I've never said it was fine. Everybody can be wrong. So what then? What's the upshot?

You make a fair point and I'll try to stop doing that with you. It was nothing personal I was thinking about other posters, but we have our own dialogue and we can keep it civil if we like. I shouldn't have let that other poster affect my tone with you.

Hmm... Due process afforded after being charged with an actual crime according to local law. That's already a step up from the "administrative" detention of Israel where no charge is laid and Palestinians are in prison for months and sometimes even years. Try again... — Benkei

Well, glad to know it was all done by the books. Thanks for setting me straight there. If only the Israeli government could learn such professionalism! /s

I mean that's pretty clear, no? — fdrake

I would have thought so but others explicitly reject this "lets first and foremost help the Palestinians" approach. From an exchange yesterday:

What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation.
— BitconnectCarlos

No, this is not the issue. The contributory negligence or guilt of other parties does not excuse Israeli war crimes. — Benkei

I was trying to frame the issue in a constructive, forward-looking way and Benkei, for whatever reason, refocuses the discussion exclusively on Israel. It's ridiculous to me because it implies that Hamas and the PA are either non-existent (or don't matter) or are Israeli puppets - neither of which are true. The PA and Hamas are the direct regional governments of the Palestinian people. They are quite relevant and play an active role in the daily lives of Palestinians.

As it stands the Palestinians are using whatever political means available to help themselves; yes, including terrible violence; it's up to Israel to increase the space of acceptable means. It has been for some time, but it doesn't happen. — fdrake

This is difficult to do as Hamas will arrest Palestinians who attempt to reach out to Israelis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-gaza-activists/hamas-releases-palestinian-peace-activists-arrested-after-zoom-call-with-israelis-idUSKBN27B2JU

These peace meetings are considered treason by Hamas.

The PA over in the West Bank hasn't had an election in around 10 years and the level of corruption and embezzlement is so widespread that its become just a fact of life, but they get no attention as they are not Hamas. Things have undoubtedly been better in the West Bank though.

"Lets help the Palestinians" is such a better, more constructive approach than "lets make Israel bleed." One of these focuses on an actual legitimate problem, the other is directly counter-productive and actually a big part of the reason that people like Netanyahu are in power.

"Their grandparents massacred us so it's ok for us to massacre them now" — khaled

I never said massacres are okay. Massacres are always bad. Israel has sentenced some of the war criminals in those years, although not in a way that one would normally consider fair. Did the Arab governments arrest and sentence their murderers?

People from both sides are interviewed. If you look the whole clip, it explains interestingly also how many in the US, Middle-East experts and also Secretary of State George Marshall, were opposed to the idea of Israel and feared (correctly) that it would start a war, but Truman had his way.

I think many people can agree that the circumstances in which Israel became a state were far from ideal. I think you do a good job at digging up the history here, and I like that you cite Benny Morris. I've found Morris never shies away from Israeli atrocities and more or less believes in just putting it all out there.

In any case the approach that I go with is how do we best move forward from where we are now. I think we should be working to bring people from both sides of the fence together. I don't have much faith in Netanyahu, and I have zero in Hamas. I guess I would have to favor a grassroots solutions if that type of thing is at all possible.

The history is what it is. On the Arab account maybe things only begin with the creation of Israel/the "nakba"/ "the great humiliation" - but for the Jews Israel is only the latest chapter in a 3000 year story - the culmination of centuries of struggle and exile.

Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe get a life? — Benkei

I just gotta respond to this.

This isn't me angry or bitter at the Romans. I am making a cultural observation here.

I did suspect you were posting disingenuously — fdrake

If we're going to frame the conflict as a zero-sum game, as other posters have, then I can play that game too. No, history does not begin in 1948 like the Europeans seem to believe. We're not going to solve much by looking back where each side can bring up endless grievances, we're going to do much better by looking forward.

Though I believe Benkei is actually attempting to engage you rationally here. I believe if you asked him principled questions like: "What is a war crime?" and "Why do you believe Israel is an apartheid state?" and other such things they would be able (but perhaps not willing at this point) to give you either detailed answers or resources. — fdrake

It wasn't those questions that you cited that offended me. It's a number of things that we could dive into if you like but otherwise I'd rather just move on.

What I didn't understand was which Carlos was displaying your actual intent. — fdrake

It all depends on the way the conflict is being framed. With most people it'll be civil and I'll try to distance myself from my identity as much as possible, but the minute one side appears more intent on simply demonizing the other rather than finding a solution I'm done.

You can of course criticize and ask questions but it's all about how you phrase it. You've asked me a ton of questions and I respond and there's never been an issue. I've been more than happy to admit that Israel is far from perfect.

It's all about the way you frame it. I approach the issue asking "what's the best way to help the Palestinians improve their position today" but others are simply more interested in demonizing one side. Israel is much more amenable to working with a Palestinian government that doesn't demand its immediate dissolution and refuses to recognize it.

As for Benkei, I realize that "tirades" was the wrong word. The issue here is phrasing and approach. And the fact that a white European is so, so convinced that the WB and Gaza, for whatever reason, absolutely belong to the Palestinians 100%.

What people don't understand about these discussions is that there's two Carlos'.

You, @ssu and @Ciceronianus the White are getting the reasonable, "objective" Carlos because your writing actually feels genuine to me. We're having an actual conversation about the subject and you seem to be approaching it from an honest standpoint. I am doing my best to distance myself from my identity to engage you productively.

I've been talking with Benkei for a while on this matter and I've never, ever got the sense he's attempting to be objective. I finally just threw up my hands today with him.

But yeah, this line is not something I'd ever argue with you or ssu because it's totally unproductive. I just had to get it off my chest with Benkei after his tirades.

I couldn't help myself, Benkei started playing the victim game and I had jump right on in there.

That's what being principled means, yes. — StreetlightX

Those principles are the luxury of the uninvolved outsider. It makes no difference to you if Israel collapses, and that's fine, it wouldn't matter to me if Australia was in some conflict or war and they got overrun. They were probably the oppressors anyway.

Alright so if the Arabs overran the Jews and made Jews into second class citizens, as Jews have always been under Arab rule, you'd be on the Jews side. Well that's great to hear, but I'm gonna have to say "no thanks" to your support.

Do you care about dead Jews in the 20th century? 19th century? When do you draw the line?

Ethnic cleansing is par for the course in the Middle East.

Neither are dead Jews. But apparently dead Jews are a game to you because you've laughed at the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Just admit you don't care about dead Jews, it'll make things so much easier.

This isn't my usual line, but if people want to play the victim game we can play the victim game. @Benkai started the victim game, I'm just finishing it.

ah so you admit you're a racist then. OK, that's solved then, you're no longer worth my time. Buh-bye! — Benkei

If you're unwilling to accept that ethnicity and religion play a role in this conflict then it's probably best we stop talking about this.

Why are you laughing at ethic cleansing? Are you a racist?

Nothing you said is a justification for how Palestinians are currently treated. — Benkei

Nothing you've said justifies the Assyrians destroying the Kingdom of Judea in 750 BCE and ethnically cleansing the Jews there.

You're the only one that thinks my skin-colour, religion or ethnicity has any relevance here... which is pretty racist I guess. — Benkei

Yeah, me and the entire Middle East...so the people involved in the conflict as opposed to enlightened Europeans who have zero personal or cultural connection to the affair, yet believe they're in perfect right to judge everything.