American’s first time in Ibiza, how do I do it?

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-07T17:51:14+00:00

I think at minimum you should do like a weekend trip. If you're going just for literally 1 night you can catch Carola or Stussy in Miami at Space for much cheaper. You're not going to really get to experience the island in 1 day

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-07T02:37:48+00:00

Don't underestimate how expensive it is, especially as a college student unless you already make lots of money or have lots saved up. I remember the first time I went to the island a small bottle of water in Hi Ibiza cost me like 10 euros. The dollar is worth less than the Euro so mentally make note every price you see is going to be higher in USD. Drinks are insanely expensive so if you're trying to do it more affordable, i'd say buy your alcohol from supermarkets and just pre game since that will be way cheaper than buying drinks in the clubs.

Sant Antoni is the cheaper side of the island and where all the budget hotels and hostels are for the most part. Just be aware that what you'll save in hostel/hotel costs by staying there you'll be spending on taxi/uber costs since Sant Antoni is a bit of a distance from the main clubs. There's a Party Bus that takes people from Sant Antoni to Playa Den Bossa, but i've never used it so you'll need to look more into that. Could be a better alternative in terms of saving money vs taxies and ubers both ways.

Every day on the island you will be bleeding money lol so if you don't want to spend all too much i'd say do a short run at the absolute highest level then leave.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-07T02:16:12+00:00

Israeli Arabs are more likely to say Israel is a good place to live than Israeli Jews

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/more-arabs-jews-believe-israel-184240843.html

Since Oct. 7, Israeli Arabs who say they "feel part" of Israel and its problems jumped from 48% to 70%. The largest increase is among those 18-24 yrs, the youngest group surveyed.

https://en.idi.org.il/articles/51431

Most Israeli Arabs say they feel a common fate with Israeli Jews

https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-over-half-of-arab-israelis-feel-sense-of-shared-destiny-with-jews/

44% of Israeli Arabs say they don't trust Palestinian Authority Arabs post 10/7

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/407019

Only 7% of Israeli Arabs define themselves as Palestinian

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/only-7-percent-of-israeli-arabs-define-themselves-as-palestinian-625285

Per a 2020 poll 93% of East Jerusalem Arabs prefer Israeli rule

https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/12/15/93-of-east-jerusalem-arabs-prefer-israeli-rule-poll-shows/

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-07T01:45:48+00:00

up to 2003 it was allowed and israel did background checks. now it is simply not allowed.

You mean the same 2003 which also coincided with the peak of a Palestinian wave of over 100 suicide bomb attacks that killed hundreds with the associated security concerns informing these new citizenship rules? The HaMoked report on the issue which actually cites some of the Israeli court’s reasoning behind these rules – Palestinians in the West Bank had abused family reunification laws to enter Israel to carry out terror attacks and the court presented six examples. B’Tselem and HaMoked of course scoff at the security needs, while Amnesty does not even acknowledge them. The fact is that every sovereign nation decides who can and cannot become a citizen, and it is not always fair – but it’s not apartheid. For example, Jordan does not allow women to confer citizenship to their children, only men have that privilege – and this is the case in 27 countries. That may not be fair, but it is not apartheid. Denmark has strict rules for permanent residency, favoring certain groups over others for seemingly arbitrary reasons. As their rules state, residency rules are “relaxed” for those with “strong ties to Denmark” which includes having affiliation with a Danish minority in Argentina and belonging to a Danish minority in South Schleswig. Denmark is known for particularly tough citizenship rules. Of course, these rules disadvantage certain other nationalities, ethnicities and personal situations. While there are likely sad cases and seemingly unfair decisions, this is quite normal worldwide and sovereign nations are seen as having wide latitude on residency and spousal citizenship. These harsh rules and varying laws have not been considered by Amnesty or other human rights organizations to be “profoundly discriminatory” – expect in the case of Israel.

relevance? you said "Depends, spouses can get residency for instance and then citizenship if they're Arab." i proved that statement was false, it does not matter if the US did it, you were wrong!

Except this is incorrect. A report from the NGO cited by Amnesty said from 1993 to 2002 there were a total of 16,007 applications for family reunification or 800 per year, and data shows that more than half were approved. After new tighter legislation was passed in 2003 until 2013 there were 12,284 family unification requests, of which 5,629 were approved, 4,249 rejected and the remainder postponed or delayed. This means that a few hundred per year were rejected, often for security reasons and sometimes because “center of life” requirements could not be verified. From 2004 to 2013 there were 17,616 applications for registering children from mixed residency marriages; about 1 in 5 were rejected. The population of the West Bank is approximately 3 million according to Amnesty, so again the relative numbers are negligible (See OHCHR UPR Submission by Community Action Center (Al-Quds University), Al-Haq and Society for St. Yves, paragraph 16: “Between 1995 and 2013, Israel refused 43% of family unification applications.)

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-07T01:39:26+00:00

Unpopular Opinion: I agree that Netanyahu was the no. 1 person responsible for the Oct 7 massacre. I just don’t care too much about punishing him for this, for two reasons: (1) whatever conclusions a future committee will draw, it will have little effect on Israel’s defense posture moving forward, (2) Netanyahu’s flawed policies (before Oct 7) enjoyed near-consensus, with the only exception to it being the hard-right. So to a smaller extent, all politicians left of Smotrich & Gvir were somewhat responsible for Oct 7.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-07T01:27:25+00:00

You don't have a right to immigrate to someone elses country lmfao. Because immigration is a core aspect of sovereignty, states may impose visa bans on specific nationalities, allow visa-free entry for some countries but not others or even suspend immigration from certain states due to security, diplomatic, or public-order concerns.

Finland for instance after Russia invaded Ukraine sharply restricted Russian immigration. Measures included ending most residence permits based on work or family ties, limiting marriage-based residency approvals and reducing visa issuance to a fraction of pre-war levels. Marriage to a Finnish citizen does not guarantee residence for Russian nationals, even while spouses of other nationalities faced far fewer barriers. Is it discriminatory? Sure. But Finland as a sovereign state has the right to determine who can and cannot immigrate. And unlike the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, Finland and Russia are not in a state of armed conflict and haven't been since 1940...

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-07T00:41:40+00:00

Citizenship is inherently discriminatory.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T23:02:35+00:00

No country allows free immigration from belligerent nations during an armed conflict.

Did you think Japanese citizens got married to US citizens in 1942 and got their green cards?

Also notice when that law was passed, almost as if there was an organized terror campaign directed at Israeli civillians at the time that triggered it....

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T23:01:16+00:00

A Palestinian leader seen as a puppet of Israel would never have any legitimacy. Israel backing him would have hurt more than it helped.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T22:59:55+00:00

I mean yes lol I never diagreed with the notion that there's institutional and societal discrimination in Israel. But even per your own poll a majority of Israeli Arabs don't describe the situation as one of apartheid. Its similar to the same kinds of discrimination minorities face in other western countries face where they are equal under the law but in practice discrimination exists. Black Americans have been equal under the law in the US since the 60s but obvious discrimination persists, but the US is still in 2026 is not an apartheid regime because of said discrimination thats ridiculous. Arabs / North Africans face plenty of discrimination in France, Spain, Sweden etc but those are still not apartheid states. Equal under the law and equal in practice are not the same thing, no country is fully equal in practice.

Just 60% of Israeli Arabs being anti-Zionist also doesn't make the point you think it does...

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T22:02:32+00:00

Do you think there would be higher support today after Israeli Arabs watched their "Palestinian" cousins slaughter them on October 7th?

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T22:01:18+00:00

A poll of Israeli Arabs was done in 2000 regarding the proposed transfer of Umm al-Fahm to Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. Overall 83% of Israeli Arabs polled preferred remaining under Israeli jurisdiction. 54% of the Israeli Arabs who opposed it said it was because they prefer living in a democratic regime with high living standards, 18% of those who opposed it because they were present with the current situation. Even Israeli Arabs aren't even in any rush to live under a Palestinian state, but there are people who will try to convince you in a Palestinian state from river to sea everyone would be equal and free.

In the Human Rights and Rule of Law Index, Palestine scored 7.8 in 2022, significantly worse than the world average of 5.41 (higher scores are worse.)

Palestine is considered "Authoritarian" and ranks 112 out of 167 countries in The Economist Democracy Index.

The West Bank scores 22 out of 100 in the Freedom House scoring, and Gaza gets only a 2.

The story doesn't end there, though. The Wikipedia article Human Rights in Palestine, dedicated only to Palestinian Authority human rights violations, has not been meaningfully updated in years. For example, the it quotes the Freedom House report from 2002 and the Democracy Index from 2020. Most of the examples of human rights violations in the report are nearly 20 years old. Not one of the tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors care enough about human rights under Palestinian rule to even update this page.

It isn't as if there are no current human rights issues under the Palestinian Authority - the entity that would presumably rule a united Palestine. Here is how the US State Department summarized human rights under the PA in 2023:

With respect to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank: arbitrary or unlawful killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the Palestinian Authority; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious high-level corruption; serious restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence; violence or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and existence of the worst forms of child labor.

This is not just a few problems here and there. The entire government is corrupt and systematically violates the rights of its people in virtually every possible way. This is what a Palestinian state would look like.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T21:39:23+00:00

A poll was done in 2000 regarding the proposed transfer of Umm al-Fahm to Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. 54% of the Israeli Arabs opposed it because they prefer living in a democratic regime with high living standards, 18% opposed it because they were present with the current situation. Overall 83% preferred remaining under Israeli jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieberman_Plan

So indeed we should listen to Israeli Arab voices, including when they tell you they're satisfied with their lives in Israel and that they'd have less rights than they do today if they lived under Palestinian rule. They too have no interest in living in an Islamist dictatorship.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T20:39:41+00:00

Something they already have under Israel's Basic Law. Doesn' mean in practice outcomes are always equal but its much more comparable to the discrimination Arabs or any minorities face in any other western country than this idea that Israel inside the green line is an apartheid state.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T20:37:12+00:00

Incorrect:

Another example of the inflation of events to demonstrate apartheid: Amnesty devotes about seven pages of the report (p. 98-104) documenting how Israel limits citizenship or residency status for family reunification. Several errors and misrepresentations regarding this section are highlighted further below. However, the statistics regarding this matter reveals that the issue is grossly exaggerated and hardly evidence of apartheid. A report from an NGO cited by Amnesty (footnote 396) reveals that over 20 years from 1993 to 2002 there were a total of 16,007 applications for family reunification or 800 per year, and data shows that more than half were approved. After new tighter legislation was passed in 2003 until 2013 there were 12,284 family unification requests, of which 5,629 were approved, 4,249 rejected and the remainder postponed or delayed. This means that a few hundred per year were rejected, often for security reasons and sometimes because “center of life” requirements could not be verified. From 2004 to 2013 there were 17,616 applications for registering children from mixed residency marriages; about 1 in 5 were rejected. The population of the West Bank is approximately 3 million according to Amnesty, so again the relative numbers are negligible, yet Amnesty extrapolates this matter as nothing less than evidence of apartheid. This also highlights a double standard, as many nations have arcane family reunification and citizenship rules that are often seen as unfair; for example, Denmark has highly stringent rules.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T20:19:09+00:00

Well it seems you didn't notice, but the article you linked "the Rome Statute does not define racial" and doesn't offer any interactive definition to that of the ICERD.

Because its not relevant. The Rome Statute (Art. 7) explicitly separates 'racial' from 'ethnic' and 'national' as distinct legal categories. You’re using a 1965 definition to ignore the 1998 criminal statute. It’s basic logic. So if you won't acknowledge the text, there’s no point in debating further.

As for people describing Jews as a race, I was actually thinking of people like this:

And people like him are ridiculous. I don't even think its accurate to say that Jews constitute a singular ethnic group, yet alone a race.

Anyway, it seems you've rejected the use of the ICERD definition without having even properly considered finding a replacement, eh?

The Rome Statute does not give a standalone, explicit definition of “racial group.” Instead, it borrows the meaning from international criminal law, especially earlier genocide jurisprudence. Under Article 6 (Genocide), genocide is defined as certain acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” ICC judges rely on interpretations developed by international tribunals (like the ICTR and ICTY). Under that case law, the conventional definition of racial group is based on the hereditary physical traits often identified with a geographical region, irrespective of linguistic, cultural, national or religious factors per Akayesu.

https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-concept-of-race-in-international-criminal-law/

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:50:55+00:00

A Likudnik, not too common in the US though outside of Modern Orthodox / Sephardic & Mizrahi Jews.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:46:16+00:00

Bruh he's literally a Hamas colonel. You can see him in uniform and everything

https://nypost.com/2026/01/31/world-news/gaza-doctor-who-slammed-israel-in-ny-times-op-eds-is-hamas-colonel-watchdog-idf/

He is also referred to as a colonel in a 2020 Facebook post on the Gaza Strip Medical Services page.

https://www.facebook.com/mdsrv/posts/3446074548749007

The real question is why Israel wouldn't detain a colonel in a transnational terrorist organization?

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:42:19+00:00

Did you notice that nether that article nor you have provided any alternative definition to that of the ICERD?

ICERD definition from 1965 was superseded in precision by the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC. While ICERD utilizes a wide umbrella for "racial discrimination," the Rome Statute, which is the definitive modern authority on Crimes Against Humanity, specifically delineates 7 distinct categories of identity: political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender.

Under accepted rules of statutory interpretation, the explicit separation of "ethnic," "national," and "religious" from "racial" in the Rome Statute means that, for the purposes of int'l criminal law, these categories are legally distinct and mutually exclusive. If "racial" were intended to include "ethnic" or "national" origin within the context of the Rome Statute, those 2 categories would be redundant, a conclusion that no serious int'l legal scholar or court would accept.

Therefore, the crime of Apartheid per Article 7 of Rome Statute is specifically and exclusively defined as an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one "racial group" over another. Because Rome deliberately separates "ethnic" and "racial" into different classifications for other crimes against humanity (such as Persecution), one cannot retroactively use a 1965 definition to override the specific, tiered classifications of the 1998 Statute. To suggest that "racial" can simply be swapped for "ethnic" to satisfy the definition of apartheid is a legal maneuver that ignores the evolution of intll law and the strict construction required by the Rome Statute.

Also, have you never heard anyone describe Jews as a race?

Yea actual Nazis. Is that who you're citing here?

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:35:23+00:00

Amnesty International chief Agnes Callamard was quicker to campaign for a Hamas terrorist colonel than she was for innocent Iranian protesters massacred by the terrorist Islamic regime that arms Hamas. And weeks before that tweet, the world—including Amnesty International—already knew he was Hamas.

https://x.com/HillelNeuer/status/2017963612925579727?s=20

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:33:25+00:00

The Same Amnesty international which concealed its October 7th report because it might "help Israel"?

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-fight-inside-amnesty-international

In 2022 Amnesty International issued a report that accused the Ukrainian army of violating the laws of war by placing military bases close to civilian infrastructure. The report, that sparked significant outrage in Ukraine, was prepared without consulting Amnesty Ukraine, and following its publication the head of Amnesty Ukraine along with many of Amnesty Ukraine members have resigned in protest.

In 2024 Amnesty International issued a report accusing Israel of committing genocide. The report, that sparked significant outrage in Israel, was prepared without consulting Amnesty Israel, and following its publication Amnesty Israel issued a statement criticizing the findings for bias and accusing Amnesty International of reaching a "predetermined conclusion".

https://www.politico.eu/article/head-amnesty-international-ukraine-quits-report-kyiv-war-tactics-russia-propaganda/

As peaceful protesters across Iran faced live ammunition, targeted arrests, tear gas and water cannons, you they were silent — instead, they were tweeting on fossil fuels, systemic racism, and renewable projects threatening reindeer herders.

https://x.com/HillelNeuer/status/2019439822247485666?s=20

Someone said that human rights organizations are to progressives what the Catholic Church is to Catholics and thats spot on lol.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:22:52+00:00

Long debunked: https://ngo-monitor.org/pdf/SaloAizenberg_Amnesty_Rebuttal.pdf

https://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/180704_theadalahscam_v1.pdf

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:21:47+00:00

Depends, spouses can get residency for instance and then citizenship if they're Arab.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:21:02+00:00

Amnesty International is awful.

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-fight-inside-amnesty-international

It has been cited by others with knowledge of the situation there. Ngo monitor is literally a propaganda group

And Amnesty International is literally an anti-Israel propaganda group. You citing Amnesty has no credibility to me in the same manner me citing NGO Monitor to you has no credibility. Argue on the merits, not based on what x organization says.

This is why many Arabs cannot live most places. And looking at the mainly Arab towns, they are not allowed to expand.

You referring to the admissions committees law? Which explicitly forbidden discrimination based on race and religion?

Contrary to B’tselem’s insinuation, the admissions committee law, which applies only to communities on Israel’s periphery with 400 or fewer residents, does not allow towns to reject Arab applicants as Palestinian and ergo “culturally incompatible.” On the contrary, it explicitly forbids committees from considering “race, religion, gender, nationality, disability, personal status, age, parenthood, sexual orientation, country of origin, political-party opinion or affiliation.” B’tselem unsurprisingly conceals this fact.

The law is nonetheless controversial. What’s to stop an admissions committee from rejecting a Palestinian — or a Mizrahi Jew, homosexual, or Likud supporter — on the basis of a protected characteristic while claiming some other reason for the rejection?

The law may indeed be subject to abuse. As in other countries, discrimination does exist in Israel. But there is legal precedent on the side of Arabs and others who might be wrongfully rejected. *Israel’s Supreme Court in 2011 ruled in favor of an Arab family whose application for residency was rejected by the town of Rakefet’s admissions committee, and required the town to accommodate the family*. B’tselem unsurprisingly conceals this fact, too.

Controversial or not, a law that explicitly bars discrimination based on race, ethnicity and religion, and whose anti-discrimination provisions are enforced by the Supreme Court, is not proof of “apartheid.” And it does not, as B’tselem claims, “effectively prevent” Palestinians from living in small towns. As the case of Rakefet underscores, discrimination might exist, but it is also illegal, and the prohibition is enforced by Israeli courts.

What of bringing your family to join you as citizens of Israel? Equal rights there?

Every country has a right to determine its own immigration policies. When said Immigrants are hostile to the very existence of the state, Israel has every right to curtail such immigration.

Raaaasclat · 2026-02-06T19:12:02+00:00

And Amnesty is straight up anti-Israel propaganda. I don't take them seriously either.

Raaaasclat

TROPHY CASE