Always wondered how the parser managed the ambiguity between & for file descriptors and & to start background tasks. (And without a good mental model, I kept forgetting where to put the & correctly in redirects)
Treating ">&" as a distinct operator actually makes an elegant solution here. I like the idea.
Which part of "common ownership" means that you somehow don't own it? The whole idea is that you do own it - in part, but enough to get a say in what to do with it.
"It" being the means of production - factories, data centers, farms. Not your personal belongings.
> they are overly-focused on versioning and legacy support (from APIs to DB schemas--even if you're working on a brand new project)
I mean, DB schema versioning is one of the things that you can dismiss as "I won't need it" for a long time - until you do need it, at which point it will be a major pain to add.
I second this. Especially with a coding assistant, there's no reason not to start out with proper data model migration. It's not hard, and is one of the many ways to enforce some process accountability, always useful for the LLMs
If they wanted to go after Hamas, why did they employ methods of combat that were guaranteed to affect civilians, like cutting off the entire strip from food supply?
Or the massacre that this thread is about for that matter?
At some point it becomes obvious the Palestinians (under their current government and political climate) doesn't want peace.
Wikipedia is not a good source here. There was never a sincere offer accepted by all Palestinians that acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Specifically the sticky point here is the right of return which means that Israel ceases to exist. A peace proposal that includes the destruction of Israel is not one made on good faith. Either way it's not up to the Arab states to make peace here, it's up to the Palestinians.
> Most sources agree, that under Israel's final proposal, the Temple Mount (including Al-Aqsa) would remain under Israeli sovereignty. Israel would also take most of the rest of East Jerusalem, while Palestinians would get some parts too. Israel would annex 8% or 13.5% of the West Bank, and would maintain a military of an additional 6–12% of the West Bank for an unspecified period of time (sometimes called a "long term lease"). According to some sources, Israel would also retain its settlement blocks in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian state would not be contiguous and the West Bank would be split into 2 or 3 sections. Finally, Israel would control Palestinian airspace.
How is that a sovereign state?
> Specifically the sticky point here is the right of return which means that Israel ceases to exist.
If you see Jewish supremacy as a core element of Israeli statehood, then I guess, yes. There are other concepts though, like a one-state solution, which would solve that.
> Either way it's not up to the Arab states to make peace here, it's up to the Palestinians.
The arab states have leverage though, and in this situation, they tried to use it.
I honestly don't see how Palestinians would be able to make peace if the result is more creeping settlements like in the west bank. What is the outlook here? Where would they live?
Historically, Palestine has never been a country. The Romans captured Judea, and later expelled the Jews and renamed the province Syria Palaestina (after previous enemies of the Jews). After the Romans, many other empires held the land: the Arabs, Mamluks, Turks, British. But at no point was it a country. Even when the Egyptians and Jordanians captured Gaza and the West Bank, they didn't give independence to Palestine. Israel captured Gaza/West Bank. They gave full control to Gaza in 2005. So you could say Gaza is a country now.
Yes, that's the standard text, I know. (Just ignoring the arab movement since the 1880s to make it a country and the British promise to help with that).
But that wasn't my question. If Palestine isn't a country, then what are the Palestinians?
I don't see how that's relevant to the earlier claim, but even this claim of yours is a gross overstatement.
There was a partial blockade, not a full blockade, and this partial blockade came after Palestinians launched the second intifada. Prior to the october 7 massacre, perpetrated by Hamas and gazan civilians, tens of thousands of gazans were able to travel out of gaza through egypt and israel, where many of them worked. nearly 75,000 truckloads of food and cargo went into gaza from israel in 2022. Gaza exported lots too.
My point is that Israel had full control about exactly what Gaza was allowed to import and export (and frequently used those controls for collective punishment as well)
I don't quite see how under those circumstances, they were able to build "a more powerful army than many European countries", unless you talk about Luxembourg or the Vatican.
Yes, Israel and Egypt together controlled what Gaza was allowed to import and export - not as a form of collective punishment, but to ensure its own security. There's a huge difference between that and a "full blockade" (which is what Russia did to Mariupol early in the war), so precision matters.
In terms of Hamas's army being more powerful than that of many European countries, I'll respond to that below.
And the Wikipedia article you cite has been manipulated by a band of ideological editors and is not reliable, and has no value (inverse value?) as a citation.
The article currently has 361 references. Also the accusation they use it in arbitrary means, for collective punishment is widely shared, not just here.
Explain to me how continuously reducing the area permitted for fishing is necessary for Israel's security.
Calling the Second Intifada "sparked by Israeli massacres" reverses the basic chronology and ignores Palestinian leaders' own admissions.
1) Marwan Barghouti (Fatah leader of the uprising in the West Bank) told The New Yorker in Jan 2001:
"The explosion would have happened anyway... But Sharon provided a good excuse."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/01/29/arafats-gift
2) UK Parliament Hansard (Apr 16, 2002) quotes the semi-official PA daily Al-Ayyam (Dec 6, 2000) reporting PA communications minister Imad al-Falouji:
"the Palestinian authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current intifada... in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself"
and that it was not meant merely as a protest over Sharon's visit.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2002-04-16/debates/d69...
(search within the page for "Al-Ayyam" or "Al-Falouji")
1. Ariel Sharon staged a deliberate provocation by storming the Temple Mount with hundreds of policemen.
2. Palestinians protested, and Israeli forces shot live ammunition at them, killing four Palestinian civilians. Within weeks, riots had broken out and Israel had killed dozens of Palestinian civilians.
Israeli actions were the spark, not some planned Palestinian operation.
The long-term cause of the 2nd Intifada was Israeli refusal to carry out the Oslo Accords in good faith. The Palestinians recognized Israel and agreed to give up the armed struggle for their freedom in exchange for a set process by which Israel would rapidly withdraw from the occupied territories and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. The Israelis repeatedly reneged on that throughout the 1990s, and by 2000, the Palestinians were completely disillusioned with the so-called "Peace Process."
This mixes up the first 24 hours with who launched the Intifada as a sustained campaign.
Even if you think Sharon’s Temple Mount visit was provocative and Israeli police used excessive force on Sept 29, senior Palestinian figures later said the uprising was coming anyway and was planned, and Sharon was a convenient trigger.
Also, it is not just Israelis saying this. Mainstream sources record these admissions and describe the outbreak as Palestinian violence following the visit.
You've actually hit on the most important point: Although Oslo was sold as a two-state solution, the Israelis never agreed in writing to a Palestinian state.
The Israelis showed an incredible amount of bad faith. Rabin said in one of his last speeches that there would never be a Palestinian state - only a semi-autonomous entity under Israeli control. The Israelis never halted settlement construction. After Rabin was assassinated by the Israeli Right, Netanyahu deliberately sabotaged Oslo for years (which he brags about today), refusing to withdraw from the occupied territories as agreed.
After 7 years of this, with a Palestinian state no closer at all, a top Israeli politician (soon to become PM) staged a deliberate provocation, and Israeli forces began massacring Palestinian civilians.
Of course there were thoughts in the PLO about the possibility of future armed resistance. They would have been crazy not to think about that possibility. But they preferred a negotiated two-state solution, and they tried to get it for 7 years. After the Israelis started massacring Palestinian civilians, it would have been impossible for the PLO to keep a lid on the violence.
You are switching topics because the original claim does not survive contact with the record.
You said Israeli massacres sparked the Second Intifada. Your own timeline does not name any massacre that happened before it began. The first deaths were in the clashes after Sharon’s visit. That is tragic, but it is not some prior massacre that supposedly set everything off.
Also, your Oslo framing is backwards. Oslo did not promise a Palestinian state or rapid final withdrawal. It is an interim framework that explicitly defers permanent-status issues like borders, settlements, and Jerusalem to later negotiations.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/isrplo.asp
A politician visiting a holy site under police protection is not a massacre and not a justification for launching an intifada.
Switching topics? We've been discussing the reasons for the 2nd Intifada. The Israelis reneging on Oslo was the fundamental reason for it.
> Your own timeline does not name any massacre that happened before it began.
Huh? I've mentioned the massacres that Israeli forces carried out in the aftermath of Ariel Sharon's storming of the Temple Mount several times now.
> The US-led Mitchell Report is explicit: Sharon’s Temple Mount visit did not cause the Intifada
You cite the Mitchell Report when it agrees with you, but ignore it when it disagrees with you.
The Mitchell Report explicitly states that the PLO had no premeditated plan to unleash violence.
In fact, it says that the proximal cause of the 2nd Intifada was the massacre that Israel carried out on 29 September 2000 against Palestinian protesters. Those protests were in response to Sharon's storming of the Temple Mount.
The report says that after that massacre, neither side showed restraint, which caused the violence to escalate.
So the report that you yourself are citing as an authority turns out to agree almost 100% with what I've been telling you all along.
> Oslo did not promise a Palestinian state or rapid final withdrawal.
Actually, Oslo II lays out a very specific timeline for Israeli withdrawal, to be completed within 18 months (by mid-1996!).
More generally, the Oslo Accords were sold as a rapid path to a two-state solution. If the Accords weren't about a two-state solution, then the Palestinians were completely swindled by the Israelis.
You opened with: the Second Intifada was sparked by Israeli massacres. Now your alleged massacre is Sept 29, the first day of the clashes after Sharon’s visit. That is not a prior massacre that precipitated anything, it is the opening confrontation itself, and you are laundering it with a loaded word.
On Oslo, you did not even mention it until your massacre story fell apart. And your Oslo summary is wrong on the text. Oslo II explicitly defers permanent-status issues (Jerusalem, settlements, borders, refugees, etc.) and excludes them from PA jurisdiction. The 18-month line is about phased interim jurisdiction, not a guaranteed state or full withdrawal. This was also obvious to everyone alive at the time and was widely reported. It's only now that people like you are attempting to rewrite history.
https://www.peaceagreements.org/agreements/410/
Read the Mitchell Report you keep invoking.
- It describes Sept 29 as large demonstrations where Palestinians threw stones and Israeli police used rubber-coated bullets and live ammunition, killing 4 and injuring about 200. Calling that a massacre is absurd. It was an armed clash, premeditated and planned by the palestinians, so not only was there no massacre, but the Palestinians themselves say armed clash was premeditated and Sharon's visit was just a pretext.
- The Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
Also, Sharon visiting a holy site under police protection is not violence. Mitchell even says holy places must be accessible to all believers. The choice to turn that into an uprising was a choice.
> You opened with: the Second Intifada was sparked by Israeli massacres. Now your alleged massacre is Sept 29, the first day of the clashes after Sharon’s visit. That is not a prior massacre that precipitated anything, it is the opening confrontation itself, and you are laundering it with a loaded word.
Those are the exact same thing. The "clashes" you're describing are Israeli forces firing live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in the wake of Sharon's deliberate provocation.
You pulled out the Mitchell Report as an authority on the subject, and it turns out that the Mitchell Report backs me up.
> Calling that a massacre is absurd.
Police opening up with live ammunition into a crowd of unarmed demonstrators, killing 4 and injuring 200 is not a massacre?
> but the Palestinians themselves say armed clash was premeditated and Sharon's visit was just a pretext.
No, no one said the September 29th clashes were premeditated. How would the PLO even be responsible for Israel deciding to open up with live ammunition on a crowd of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators? Did the PLO use mind control on the Israelis?
> Also, Sharon visiting a holy site under police protection is not violence. Mitchell even says holy places must be accessible to all believers.
The Mitchell Report says that Sharon's visit was a deliberate provocation. He wasn't just a random believer visiting a holy site. He was a top Israeli politician (on the verge of becoming prime minister) and a notorious general with a long career of slaughtering Palestinian civilians (including in Lebanon, where he let fascist Christian militias carry out a massacre in a Palestinian refugee camp). He stormed the holiest Muslim site in Palestine with hundreds of police officers. It was a political stunt intended to spark a reaction. One would have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise. Sharon knew that his actions would spark a massive outrage among Palestinians. Or are you claiming that Sharon had no idea what he was doing?
> The 18-month line is about phased interim jurisdiction, not a guaranteed state or full withdrawal.
No, the 18-month deadline is explicitly about full withdrawal of all Israeli forces from virtually the entire West Bank (including Area C) to specific military bases. Israel just completely reneged on that. Netanyahu has boasted about torpedoing Oslo by reneging on that specific requirement.
Sure, they only have several ministers in the government, Likud politicians show up at settler events, they keep changing the laws to be more in favor of settlers, etc etc...
As for Palestinian settlers, where would those even be?
Treating ">&" as a distinct operator actually makes an elegant solution here. I like the idea.
reply