It’s “support the victim” but verify. Blindly supporting anyone is… problematic to say the least.

The Central Park 5

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jogger-believes-person/story?id=63077131

When the first trial began in August 1990 against Salaam, Santana and McCray, Meili agreed to testify. On the witness stand, she talked about what her normal running practices had been and what she had been wearing that night.

“I remember I was very nervous," she said. “I thought, ‘I know I have no memory but I wanted people to know the condition that I had been in.’”

The police were shit at their jobs, and they used Meili to convict those boys.

Could someone more informed tell me or point me in the right direction of why Pakistan and Iran are having border skirmishes?

Are there historical tensions there beyond the border? Is it more than a difference in religions?

“an ungodly godly amount of furry porn”

Putin wants those excellent Baguettes

Which is also funny to me because I’d argue WW2 was one of the more moral wars to ever be fought considering the ideologies of Germany, Italy, and Japan at the time.

They probably don’t like talking about the events leading up to the war because they sympathize with the America First movement and, by extension, the Nazis.

Many of the republicans I’ve interacted with “love” WW2 history and it’s sadly funny to me that they should know the events leading up to the war and the policy of appeasement failing to achieve its goals, but they continue to regurgitate Fox News appeasement talking points at me.

It highlights the problem of cognitive dissonance lmao

IIRC the President has power over the navy to conduct essentially war acts for 30 days before congressional approval. Going after the constitutionality if this act is stupid. Focus on the anti-war angle.

I was specifically curious about the first source as I have heard from other sources (namely Behind the Bastards) that the US initially did not care much for Israel, the Soviets helped more, and it wasn’t until the early 60s after an aggressive lobbying campaign was Israel a solid US ally.

The Wikipedia page on the 1948 Arab-Israeli war has this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centres eastwards.[40]

This situation caused the United States to withdraw its support for the Partition Plan, encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan. However, the British decided on 7 February 1948 to support the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine by Transjordan.[41]

And later:

Thanks to funds raised by Golda Meir from sympathisers in the United States, and Stalin’s decision to support the Zionist cause, the Jewish representatives of Palestine were able to sign very important armament contracts in the East.

Which suggests that initially the US government did not support Israel as the ABC article suggests. The reporting seems to get around the factual claims by just quoting their source, but I think that “Democrats for Israel” dude is stretching his historical claims.

Thank you!

Hmm. My Memmy app doesn’t have the hyperlink. All I see is the word “Source” which sucks I guess lol

Where are these quotes from?

From the articles description, this doesn’t seem like it’s the best case for the government to take a stand on vigilantism.

It’s mind boggling that the only thing the state of Israel learned from the Holocaust is how to do it better.

It’s disingenuous to post that the Palestinians attacked Israel apropos of nothing.

You also clearly didn’t read the UN proposal link which discusses Jewish diaspora in the background section and you just decided to defend genocide out of the blue I guess lmao

Diaspora is near universal when it comes to ethnic groups so not a strong case. As an American, should I be able to claim some lands of France because it’s my ancestral homeland? Turns out the idea of ancestral land is stupid, because everyone lives in the now and fighting over the sins of our fathers is abject stupidity.

Jews have lived in Palestine, even after being expelled by Romans, but so have non-Jews.

Extending this line of thinking, I guess you also support movement for Native Americans to obtain their land back? The US and Canada is occupying some First Nations lands. Going further, should the Celts reclaim Britannia and kick the English out? This is a ridiculous argument.

Should these living residents of Canaan kick out the Israelis because they were there first?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bible-canaanites-wiped-out-old-testament-israelites-lebanon-descendants-discovered-science-dna-a7862936.html

Israel was formed after Palestinians attacked them

You need to read up on the history of the Zionist movement, the map of the proposed state of Israel pre-1948, Haganah/Irgun militias, and the Nakba.

Imagine living under British Imperialism, having another group of people decide that your land is their ancestral homeland, your land is now the useless desert while your coastal home is no longer yours. Imagine not fighting back after this.

This premise is already far-fetched

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#:~:text=From 1897 to 1948%2C the,first Zionist congress was organized.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

The proposed plan was considered to have been pro-Zionist by its detractors, with 56%[9] of the land allocated to the Jewish state despite the Palestinian Arab population numbering twice the Jewish population.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba