Too true. Listening to Sanders from the 80s is the same as listening to him today. It’s shocking how little his views and rhetoric have changed while being absolutely correct from the beginning.

Not a bad idea, though I’d tweak it to say election officials can’t release information, since that preserves freedom of press.

Either way, it’s highly unlikely it’s ever affected the outcome of an election.

Not unusual, and not a bad thing. They called a number of races with less than that. If you’re taking your expected percentages with the voting samples you’ve got and your statistics and calculations say there’s less than a 1% chance the race will flip, you might as well call it. They’re pretty much never wrong when they make a call that early.

It also doesn’t actually matter because the AP isn’t who decides the winner.

Very true! It’s hard to imagine Israel would be the same today without the particular cultural choices those first immigrants made. Thanks for the addition.

I think Al Jazeera is good for news related to the middle east - Al Jazeera has an Arab bias, the same way US news has a US/Israel bias. When there’s a conflict between US/Israel and the Arabs, I tend to be more sympathetic to the Arabs, so I prefer their news. Somebody with politics different from mine would disagree.

Plus they sometimes put out absolute fire like this: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/9/11/debate-in-nuclear-armed-former-colony-fails-to-reassure-global-community

True! That’s a good one to point out. It’s hard to overstate how significantly and suddenly the Arabs turned against the Jews. Plenty were understandably going to emigrate from Europe, but Israel made them very unwelcome in the Arab world, too. It’s also another good example of how Israel couldn’t have been established without their allies, since the US/UK were the primary providers of air travel for Jews seeking refuge from Arab states to Israel.

I find it very difficult to justify most historical claims of anticipatory self-defense - it usually looks to me that it’s an aggressor using an excuse to justify their aggression. I haven’t seen nearly enough evidence to suggest Israel wasn’t the aggressor in the Six Day War. While the military mobilization of their neighbors certainly contributed toward Israel’s mobilization, that alone isn’t justification for invasion. Nasser thought Israel was preparing to invade Syria, but he didn’t preemptively invade Israel, he lined up his troops on the Israel-Egypt border and waited. We know now that Israel was not mobilizing troops on Syria’s border, but Nasser’s choice to defend his border was reasonable and nonviolent, even with false information.

But aside from that, I think it’s reasonable to suggest Israel would have attacked even had there been no mobilization of troops from the Arab states. We saw Israel attack Egypt during the Suez Crisis where they forcibly re-opened passage through the Straits of Tiran, their only shipping route to the south other than the also-Egyptian Suez Canal. Just prior to the Six Day War, Egypt cut off Israel from the Straits of Tiran again, something Israel publicly called an act of war. It’s not a coincidence Israel went ahead and took Sinai (immediately adjacent to the Straits of Tiran) during this war and didn’t give it back until the Camp David Accords. (It’s worth noting that had Nasser not gotten the original false information, he wouldn’t have done any of this, and it’s entirely possible the entire thing would have been averted. But he did, and that was a huge blunder on his part. Still, I disagree with Israel that refusing them passage through shipping routes is an act of war.)

I would also suggest that Israel’s behavior after the Six Day War doesn’t seem like the actions of a country that was acting in self-defense. They conquered land during that war and continue to occupy most of it to this day. They’ve invaded other countries since, with stated reasons that are as believable as the United States’ reasons for invading Iraq. They’ve continued to occupy additional land. These actions indicate a country interested in expansionism and power growth, not peaceful co-existence.

I’m actually okay with that not being included as a critical point in Israeli history. My understanding is it was one piece in a long line of antisemitism, and while it was known by the Nazi party, it was known by the leadership to be fictional and wasn’t used seriously as propaganda by them. That’s not to say it didn’t have any effect, just that I’m not convinced it made much difference when it comes to the creation of Israel as a state.

I’m open to alternative viewpoints if you want to provide evidence or just offer some book titles that might change my mind.

I think this might be a semantic argument - it’s not important to me if we use the words “give” or “create.” Happy to use whatever words you prefer for allies having power and control of an area and ensuring that power and control is transferred to their chosen ally.

British Mandatory Palestine was officially ending May 15, 1948. Israel announced its independence on May 14, 1948. The United States officially recognized Israel as a state 11 minutes after it declared itself a sovereign state. It’s strange to suggest these are coincidences rather than planned action with their allies, but there’s plenty of evidence in addition to this to make it very clear that Israel wouldn’t have stood a chance without the backing of their superpower friends.

I think there’s a lot of fuzzyness around the idea of “born from that land.” It’s not like they sprouted out of the earth. As with just about any people, there was a lot of rape and murder of warring tribes until some combination of them stopped doing as much rape and as much murder and somewhat arbitrarily called themselves “one people.” If you want to call that “born from that land,” sure, but their ancestry goes back further than that. We’re all just apes.

does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years?

That’s one interpretation, though I’d disagree with it. I have Jewish heritage - enough that a significant portion of my ancestry was wiped out in the Holocaust, though obviously a few of them were lucky and escaped to the US with the help of a sponsor. I don’t practice Judaism as a religion and don’t really relate much to any of my heritage. Is Israel my homeland? Not at all. The United States is my homeland. Before that, Germany would be my homeland. Before that… well, I’m not sure, but history would suggest it’s highly unlikely it was Israel. I have zero attachment to that land, much like I expect you have zero attachment to the land of your ancestors from millennia ago. (I also have zero attachment to the land of my non-Jewish ancestry. I have no idea what it is from thousands of years ago, but I wouldn’t care if I did.)

Would I and other Jewish people be justified in kicking out Germans, because they spent hundreds of years there? What about the Russians? Poles? The Jewish diaspora has gone all over the place and made just about everything their home. Why should they have claim to land that their great great great great great ancestors once conquered and stole from somebody else?

If so, wouldn’t that make it understandable why they’re so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?

I would argue Israel wasn’t their home until they moved there over the last hundred or so years. Home isn’t where some of your family lived 3000 years ago. The individuals in question never lived there. Their parents never lived there. Their grandparents never lived there. None of these people had any idea what Israel was even like. Today, there are more Jewish people in the United States than there are in Israel, and they’re happy to call the United States home.

If we’re going to make the argument that people should be allowed to lay claim to land their ancestry owned 3000 years ago, we open up a lot of questions.

First, it’s worth noting that this is also the home of Palestinians. The origins of Palestinians are much less clear than the origins of Jewish people in large part because the Jews have been uniquely good at maintaining their culture, so we have a much better grasp on Jewish people throughout history than we do of Palestinians. But at its core, the fact is Palestinians haven’t ever lived anywhere else. This means they’re also “so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home.”

Second, to be consistent, we’d have to revert a lot of borders to ancient times. Does that mean we should all revert borders to what they were 3000 years ago? Why 3000? Why not 2000? 4000? Regardless, you’re uprooting a lot of people - and you’d have to provide a really good justification for that, and I don’t see it.

Third, even if we agreed the Jews have a right to this land and we should revert to their ancient borders and give them control, that doesn’t mean they have a right to attempt genocide on those living there. The moment they embarked on the Nakba, they should have lost their allies in their mission. Assuming they have a right to the land, they have to humanely displace the people there, ensure they have a new place to live, and give them adequate compensation for the land and the massive inconvenience you’ve caused by uprooting their entire lives. Sort of a “sorry we’re doing this, but we’re trying to make it right.” Instead, they’ve killed millions of people over the decades.

It’s important to separate out the government from the people, especially as it pertains to governments that don’t listen to their population and don’t have overwhelming support. Neither government is good. Most of the civilians from both sides are perfectly decent, though a number of them are misguided.

It’s really impossible to simplify it, but I’ll give it a shot with a quick timeline:

• ~1200 BCE: Several unrelated tribes of people group together to become what we now call Jews or Hebrews or ancient Israelites. How this happened and exactly when is disputed, and is significantly muddied by their own mythology.
• ~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others.
• ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time).
• ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let’s just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were.
• 1896 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “The Jewish State” and births the modern Zionist movement, claiming Jews have a right to Israel primarily on religious basis. He approaches world leaders saying as such and finds little traction.
• 1920: Britain takes control of the area now called Mandatory Palestine.
• 1941-1945: The Holocaust. I assume no additional information needed.
• 1945-1948: The Holocaust gives significant weight to Zionists’ arguments that Jewish people need their own country. As many Jews have already been emigrating there (known as “Aliyah” or Jewish emigration to the promised land) since Zionism took hold, the powers that be (UK and US primarily) already have control of the area (still Mandatory Palestine), and a desire to maintain control of the area, they decide to give most of that land to the Jews and call it Israel.
• 1948: Israel is officially recognized by the United States, its primary backer today. As part of this recognition, Israel and its allies committed what is commonly known as “The Nakba.” A huge number of Palestinians were killed, injured, jailed, or forcibly removed from the area.
• 1948: Arab-Israeli War. The Arab countries unite to fight the new state of Israel. This, as with most wars, is primarily because of power. The don’t want the West to be controlling the region. The Arabs lose, but nobody loses more than Palestine.
• 1948: Palestinian attacks on Israel start. I don’t have anywhere else to put this, but know that the end of the Arab-Israeli War didn’t end Palestinians fighting for their land and independence. They will continue to do so by any means available to them.
• 1956: Suez Crisis. Israel and its backers invade and militarily occupy part of Egypt and take control of the Suez canal because Egypt decided to nationalize it. This war is transparent in its goal for power.
• 1967: Six Day War. Israel invades a variety of areas that it borders, including land owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Palestine would be listed as well if it were recognized as a state. They’re successful in only six days. Notable areas you may have heard of that were militarily acquired by Israel at this time are the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights. Israel still retains control over these conquered areas.
• 1973: Yom Kippur War. Arab states attack to try to get back the land lost in the Six Day War. Israeli victory.
• 1978: Camp David Accords. Israel agrees to give some land back in return for being recognized by Egypt as a state. Sedat, the Egyptian leader, would be assassinated in part because of this action.
• 1987–1993: First Intifada. More organized and wide-scale Palestinian insurgency than we’ve seen before. Palestinians are fighting for their independence and their land. The insurgency is suppressed.
• 2000–2005: Second Intifada. Same reasons and result as the first.
• 2006-current: Much like the intifadas, there’s a lot to say here, but for the sake of brevity (lol too late) the Palestinian attacks that started in 1948 continue to this day. Israel intermittently declares various wars with the claim that they’re rooting out terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, and more.

This leaves out a lot. It’s just not possible to condense it. But (mostly) off the top of my head, that’s what I’d consider most of the most important bits.

The way I see it, whether or not you think Israel is “the good guys” largely hinges on whether or not you think Jews have a right to the land of Israel, and whether or not you think that claim was executed in a humane way.

I would compare it to the Native Americans - were the Americans of that time period the “good guys”? In my opinion, absolutely not. Were the Native Americans wrong for defending their land? Again, absolutely not. Were they wrong for attacking innocent civilians in retribution (for their land being taken, their own innocent civilians being killed, a genocide in progress)? Maybe, but it’s also understandable that when you’re working from a position of basically zero power against a behemoth, you can’t fight the way the behemoth fights, or you’re going to lose.

The way I see it, the Palestinian people just want a place to live and develop, and nobody’s giving them a way out, so they’re trying anything and everything they can.

Trump’s likely to win, so we might find out just how bad it gets. I’m betting it’s a literal completed genocide within his term - no Palestinian survivors in the now-official-Israeli-territories. I doubt that would change your mind though, since it’s easy to just say Harris would have done it too.

Pretty classic trolley problem here. One track has genocide. The other side has larger scale and more effective genocide, along with a pile of other issues. Nobody’s saying genocide is good, but they’re saying 50,000 dead in a year is better than millions dead in a year alongside widespread escalation of genocide elsewhere, higher international tensions with a more significant chance of a nuclear incident, and more crackdowns on dissent just like yours and mine.

Your ability to participate in political organization and not immediately be killed or thrown in jail depends on the people who are in power. The United States isn’t immune to regressing to that society, and it’s very clear the Republicans are doing what they can to move in that direction.

Voting for the Democrats and doing nothing else is far from ideal and won’t fix the institutional problems, but it will help prevent new major problems, like mass murder for criticizing the government, from popping up.

Voting for the Democrats so you can continue activism is step one, and is an important step. It’s also a trivially easy step with no downside. It’s just not the only step.

This a new conspiracy theory to me. Greta Thunberg’s parents, a moderately successful opera singer and non-Hollywood actor, are billionaires? I’d be surprised if they were worth a million, let alone a billion.

As great as it would be if she won Iowa, this is the most obvious outlier poll that ever existed. Almost nobody’s even polling Iowa because it’s not close, and the few polls other than this one show Trump as a clear winner.

I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve been seeing thread after thread of these one-off polls and just general “there’s no way Harris can lose” mentality. She had a huge lead around the time she announced Walz, but it’s been downhill since then. Most reliable predictors have her losing at this point. That sucks, but it doesn’t help to pretend it’s not happening.

Do what you can to get Harris the win, but also consider what your options are if she doesn’t.

With the now-totally-legal-thanks-to-SCOTUS voter purging, theft and destruction of ballots, aggressive voter suppression tactics, and polling that indicates an electoral college but not population vote win for Trump, they might not have to ‘Stop the Steal’ at all. They’ve “legally” pre-stolen it themselves.

Instead of being concerned what the Republicans might do if they lose, it might be worth wondering if everybody else should really take it lying down like they did the 2000 election.

Same answer it’s been for my whole lifetime: a small number of extremely wealthy individuals pumping a constant stream of money into conservative media with the express purpose of changing public opinion.

People who’ve been listening to this stuff their entire lives don’t live in the real world. They legitimately don’t believe in reality, and after a certain point I’m not sure it’s possible to bring them back. Much like climate change, this kind of thing should’ve been stopped at the source decades ago, and it might just be too late now.

The point of a billionaire owning a newspaper isn’t to be profitable or maximize readership. It’s to leverage the readership you do have into power and control. It doesn’t matter if this came out, and it doesn’t matter if it loses, say, a quarter of its readership. Bezos still gets to use it on the remaining readership and he successfully converts or kills one of the most significant Democratic-sympathizing papers in the nation.

Rupert Murdoch bought up the New York Post when it was a failing paper, and it continued to lose money for decades. I believe it’s profitable now, but that was never the purpose. It wasn’t for Bezos either.

Edit: a great parallel example of this is Musk/Twitter - huge financial loss, but it doesn’t matter, because that wasn’t the point. And if the polls are any indicator, it’s been incredibly effective and worth every penny.