I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that Masad is not assimilated into the US because he doesn't support Israel's genocide against his people? Israel is not the US and supporting it is an increasingly unpopular position in the US. If anything he's more assimilated due to his position.
"Judaism" sometimes refers to the religion, but many Jews are not religious. Jews are a group of people from Judea, hence its historical name. Some dispersion to other regions doesn't change where a group of people is from.
Palestinians are the indigenous people to the land who were ethnically cleansed via Nakba. It's not "nationalism" to allow people to return to the land that was stolen from them.
Maybe because most of them were born there and also their parents and grandparents?
That is called birthright and the way I see it, it applies to both groups. And the conflict will never be solved (without large scale genocide), if both groups largely negate the other groups rights.
You're right, expelling Israelis from Palestine would be a crime exactly as it's been a crime expelling Palestinians. While I believe that Jews had no right in the first place to immigrate there, this doesn't change the status of their descendants who are born there and whose families are born there.
But let's be clear on this: Jews that are not currently in Israel have no right to immigrate there. Jews that are in Israel have no right on any part of the land that isn't already part of Israel proper; and finally, Jews (exactly as much as Palestinians do) have a right to life, property and safety but not necessarily to their own political entity.
But what about Palestinians who were born elsewhere? Do they have a right to go back to their ancestors land?
To me it seems close to the arguments of the jewish who see themself as native, "just" on a larger timescale. There is no easy solution that I can see. (except letting go of fanatism)
In the case of Palestinians, "their ancestors" means their fathers or grandfathers. They still have the keys of their homes. In the case of Jews, it means some mythical ancestor of 2 thousand years ago or more.
But yes, the question of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees is a tough one; but I think it's a distraction. The very minimum the international community should force Israel to, is to withdraw within the 1967 border and cease any interference with the territory and sovereignty of Palestinians. It won't happen because the goal of Israelis and Zionists everywhere is to conquer as much land as they can, and a constant state of attrition is the excuse they need to keep settling more ethnically-cleansed land.
He and Paul Graham, truly are the only people speaking out against Zionism though. The rest of the VC industry is either staunchly pro-Israel or silent on the matter.
Going against everyone in your industry is contrarian. There are countless threads where Masad is attacked by mainstream venture capitalists and called "antisemitic" or "terrorist". Same with paulg.
That kinda depends on what questions the industry revolves around, doesn't it? For example, if I was once of the only vegetarian at YC, I don't think it would make me a contrarian. And it especially wouldn't if my background was of a Vegetarian-based religion.
Yes, the apartheid genoicdal terrorist state currently blocking aid should cease to exist in it's current form, that's a basic humanitarian position right now, hope that helps
My opinion on him shifted because along with Paul Graham, they're the only tech leaders who have stood up for Palestinians. I don't agree with Graham on everything either, but I've gained a lot of respect for him speaking out against Zionism. They're rich, but it still is difficult to go against the entire venture capital industry to do the right thing.
Completely agree with you on this. It will be an unfortunate exercise for future historians to look back on this time, crunch through the enormous amount of data with their quantum computers, and end up realizing just how many people were willing to condone the slaughter of innocent civilians.
You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.
Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?
My point equally applies to everyone who condones violence to achieve some end goal. Jeanette Rankin was vilified for her lone dissenting vote against war, yet decades later she is among the few of her contemporaries to have a statue in the Capitol to honor her dedication to pacifism.
You are effectively saying that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Japanese civilian population was justified, due to the actions of a few Japanese leaders. In my opinion, there is no justification for violence against civilians.
Notice that we have a holiday for MLK, and Indians have a holiday to celebrate Gandhi. Something deep inside all of us knows that pacifism is “correct”.
In my reply above, I evoked the memory of Jeanette Rankin, who was the lone dissenting vote against the Pacific War after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (somewhat analogous to the October 7th attack).
It is a natural human tendency to desire that the people who inflict pain upon others to also feel pain inflicted upon them. This has been the human condition since ancient times, and yet the most revered figures in human history have been the pacifists who consistently advocate against violence (e.g. Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, MLK, etc).
Incredible that they have a term for a war they initiated and subsequently lost. Is whats happening now in Gaza also a Nakba?
Genuinely curious what you think would have happened if all the Islamic countries would not have attacked Israel. Would there be a peaceful Palestinian country? Guess we'll never know....
But that's all history. Your "occupation resistors" decided to rampage through towns and a music festival and massacre everyone they met. And somehow you seem okay with that.
Ironically there have been much larger real protests in Israel. Zionism has become completely unstable. The good news is that means it's close to failing, the bad news is that it will become even more desperate and violent as it perishes.
You nailed it, it's totally non-organic. There are massive protests in Israel (and the US!), yet small protests in Iran are being absolutely shoved down our throats on every single social media site in preparation for yet another unprovoked attack against Iran by Israel.
Yep. Iran was quite restrained in their attacks during the 12 Day War -- hopefully they made their point about their true nature to any Western observers who aren't completely plugged into the propaganda matrix. This time they need to shove 4 hypersonics right up Unit 8200's ass.
I agree, if you contrast what Iran has done with literally any Israel/US act of aggression, it's very clear to see who is operating within the rules of human rights and who is not. I too hope Iran takes off the gloves in round two.
Storing phone calls en mass and using ai to target people based on what they say, is tech imho. This is like what Snowden revealed about PRISM, only stored on Microsoft’s servers and it’s used to kill people.
reply