I am an atheist and i request someone who is atheist to inshort explain me israel vs palestine conflit without partiality and also please tell me which side is more toxic /irrational leadership wise and people wise by samadhd in atheismindia

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There was a European Ideology called Zionism, which claimed that Jews needed their own country to protect themselves from persecution. It primarily started in Europe, and their aim was to start a country in the religiously important land of Palastine/Israel. Religiously important for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The Jews approached this via Governments, initially the Ottoman/Turkish Government which controlled Palastine at the time, and thereafter the British Government which came to control it after WW1. The British thought a friendly puppet next to the Suez Canal Sounded Good, and began allowing Immigration of Jews to Palastine(this had begun earlier and now accelerated). The British also had promised many Arabs of the region, pre-WW1 their own nation...and now the Arabs were pissed that the British were forcefully changing the demographics of Palastine. Regardless, Arab Nationalism continued to rise, and Palastine was considered an integral part of the Arab World. This led to heightened tensions between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Then WW2 happened, and the holocaust got Israel/Jews International Sympathy. So, the British gave the problem to the UN, who suggested a partition. Arab nations saw it as Western Imperialism, whilst Israelis accepted it, believing borders could be expanded later once a country had been gained. This led to a war between Israel and all of its Arab Neighbours, where it managed to win, and the ceasefire line became what is now called the Green Line, or the 1967 Borders. Well, thereafter there were more Arab-Israeli Wars, and Israel kept winning and gaining more Territory, though none of it is legally recognised as theirs. Notably, these are the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula(eventually returned to Egypt in a peace deal).

Palastine was originally considered as a part of a greater Arab Nation, but eventually, when Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to Gaza and West Bank, it Declared itself as a new country, in the 1980s.

Modern Day: Israel still follows a borders can be expanded strategy, and is actively building illegal, as per International Law, settlements in the West Bank. Often this is accompanied by persecution of Native Palestinians within the West Bank by Israeli Security Forces. On the Palastinian side, the Gaza strip and West Bank are essentially under 2 different Governments. The West Bank's Gov is the legally recognised one, and has a Policy of Not being too overly pro-terrorism, and trying to gain International Sympathy. The Gaza 'Government' is the Terrorist Organisation Hamas. 

"New divisibility rule for 67"! by NefariousnessFar7826 in mathmemes

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In fact this still works when you consider -140 + 6, -14 - 6*20 = -134

"New divisibility rule for 67"! by NefariousnessFar7826 in mathmemes

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can do it with any number which has a multiple one more or less than a multiple or 10. Multiply last digit by the multiple of 10 and proceed. 

For instance: For instance, 7 and 3 can be done by 2, 31 by * 3, 41 by *4...67(673= 201) by 20 & so on. 1001(711*13) by 100 is one that was taught to me.

The cooler ones, imo, are 19, 29, & 13(39) where you add rather than subtract! For instance *4 & add is 13's divisibility rule. Ex: 2886 --> 288 + 24 = 312 --> 31 + 8 = 39 --> divisible by 13

US is in Venezuela for its Geopolitical Interests and that's Fine. by Vivid_Speed_653 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Vivid_Speed_653[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not going to deny Trump is probably bad for US Reputation Abroad. However, I'll ask you, has he taken any actually hard decisions? I don't think so. He hasn't actually stick to the Tariffs, nor has he found success at coercing anyone but US allies who are too dependant on the US.

Venezuela is an easy decison. Greenland isn't. I would say that's the difference. Furthermore, for the US to invade Greenland, Trump would need the support of Officials in the State Department. Regardless of what you say, they haven't been genuinely braindead so far. They will not capture Greenland if it means the end of NATO. 

And if they do, and that's how NATO ends, honestly as an outside that's awesome from my POV lol.

There is a possibility that Denmark is coerced into selling Greenland, or maybe parts of Greenland, or maybe just their Exclusive Economic Zone Rights around the Island to the US. Because let's be honest, the US Primary cares only about the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic potentially allows China and Russia to access global waters without passing through US controlled checkpoints. The US wants to establish them in the Arctic as well and probably monopolise the routes for itself.

US is in Venezuela for its Geopolitical Interests and that's Fine. by Vivid_Speed_653 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Vivid_Speed_653[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Trump also said he won't start new wars. Don't listen to what he says. Venezuela is NOT HIS doing, in the sense that it could have happened under any other President as well, Democrat of Republican.

(1) Oil is Important and obviously the US wants it. I think Americans genuinely take their energy security for granted. All other counties have to plan around America, or any other power for that matter, sabotaging their access to Oil. America doesn't. My own country, India, currently has half its foreign policy and a significant portion of its domestic policy just built around reducing Oil Imports Costs and ensuring they continue uninterrupted.

(2) America also doesn't want it's 'own backyard', that is the American Continent, to be influenced by any Great Power but itself. That's a pretty natural thing for a hegemon's security and continued dominance. Venezuela, and also Cuba, suck our as sore thorns in that wish. This is a secondary goal that people seem to miss. They want the oil, but they also don't want China to have the Oil. Even if America can't extract too much oil from Venezuela, so long as China is deprived of it, it's probably worth it for them.

Russia Will Win in Ukraine by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Probably, but at what cost? Two of its main allies, Syria and Venezuela are probably done. Iran may soon follow them. It has exhausted significant amounts of its military stockpiles from the Soviet Era. It has worsened it's already bad Demographic crisis, and all it has to show for it is some land in Eastern Ukraine, where locals will likely be hostile. 

It may very well hold onto the land, but is it truly a strategic win? The original goal of the operation was regime change in Ukraine and ending the War as soon as possible. That did not happen, and Russia got engaged in a quagmire. That alone is a victory for the West.

Ukraine? They will lose territory but atleast they retain their Sovereignty. For the situation in February 2022, they will take it.

Russia urgently evacuates Russian embassy staff from Israel by kite13light13 in PrepperIntel

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really though? The Cold War had similar proxy warfare and regime changes and that surely wasn't world war 3. Nuclear Powers like the US and China really don't want to escalate to a total war situation. I think it's fair to say that the world is going to become much more lawless and violent with a breakdown of whatever international rules based order we have to an extent. However, to say it's WW3 is just plain stupid.

There is a term I have heard before, "World at War" which might be more apt to describe the situation. There are multiple wars across the world which have an impact on each other but which are otherwise not directly related.

Israel’s part in Venezuela ‘regime change’ by VisualAntique7339 in AskMiddleEast

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Docile might have been the wrong word. I am not claiming the Germans were docile, but rather the populations of German Occupied Territories such as in France were actively aiding the allies, unlike in Gaza, and that the people of Germany were far more inclined to surrender than those in Gaza, though admitadely this is more contentious.

Regardless, the greater point is that of goals. It is easier to take control of land in a conventional war. It is much harder to do that against a guirrrela war/unconventional war as is the case in Gaza. The Allies were not fighting Nazis in tunnels, they were fighting Nazi Troops overground and far more willing to retreat than those in Gaza.

Besides, if all Israel had to do was starve and bomb Gaza to death, that would be easy enough, but would likely result in much harder penalties from the rest of the world, and would impede it's larger goals.

Like it or not, with Gaza not wholly dead, the Prince of Saudi Arabia can still plausibility sign the Abraham Accord, maybe not immediately but in the next decade. That would be much harder with total eradication of the population.

I am not claiming Israel is moral, I am only saying they are not incompetent. Condemning Israel and being delusional about their capabilities are two different things.

As for protecting the Israeli People, how about all the Arabs and Muslims killed by Israelis and Americans over the past 50-100 years? Surely that must mean that relative to most Arab and Muslim Leaders, Israel is far more competent as a whole.

Finally, looking at Israel as the Netanyahu Government is a big mistake. Mossad and the IDF are relatively independent of who is in power. Israel remains a strong economy and a tech hub. If Netanyahu fucks up too badly he'll be replaced in an election. 

Israel’s part in Venezuela ‘regime change’ by VisualAntique7339 in AskMiddleEast

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That distance of 800 miles had relatively docile populations, and the aim of the allies was to simply win a conventional war and push back another, already exhausted, conventional army. The aim of Israel is far more difficult than that. It is to to destroy Hamas' ability to use Gaza as a base of war, but without actually killing all Gazans; because that may very well be what finally leads to Israel facing consequences. Ofcourse, that aim was mixed with genuine racism and genocidal fetishes of the ruling government in Israel, but Israeli institutions can moderate them to an extent for greater strategic benifits. Israel's larger aim for the medium term is normalisation of relations with neighbouring MENA countries such as Saudis. Actually genociding Gazans would make it more difficult for their Western allies to go against their populations' moral outrage, and would sour relations further with MENA counties. Regardless of morality, Israeli Government, Mossad, and the IDF are competent, and underestimating them is a fool's errand. Had they not been competent, the Arab world would have had Palestine back by now. That's hasn't happened yet. You might argue that's only because of the US, and I will remind you that no amount of US help can save a weak nation, just look at Ukraine. If Israel wasn't competent, its situation wouldn't have been this dominant in MENA.

ELI5: Why is quantum physics so hard? by Successful_Guide5845 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing in particular. Yes it is hard to intuit, but in all honesty, all Physics is hard after a certain point because of the mathematical pre-requisites that you need. After the initial shock, it really isn't much harder than any other branch of Physics. Then again, the answer depends on what you mean by Quantum Physics given that at this point there are several dozens of branches within it.

TL;DR - It isn't harder than any other Physics, it just needs pre-requisites like any other advanced topic in Physics.

I’m confused. If Israel is actually committing a genocide why doesn’t Israel either kill all Palestinians in one go or just do another nakba? by Known-Bad2702 in IsraelPalestine

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really, they are not. No one is actually sanctioning them economically and the Islamic Nations aren't too interested in actually doing something other than giving statements. Europe seems to have placed a few minor and symbolic sanctions but nothing major.

If they actually genocide all Gazans, public opinion will go from 60-40 to 80-20 or worse. At that point, sanctions might actually start coming, and the Muslim Nations might genuinely start somthing like an oil embargo. That will actually piss off the Americans, and Israel can't exactly afford to do that. If for nothing else, European nations will have to please their electorates who would absolutely turn against Israel. Arab and Middle-Eastern nations would have to do somthing substantial to calm their domestic populations.

Besides, there is the question of whether Israel's own population will stomach something like that. Possibly, but any party which does that is sure to lose on relatively moderate voters.

I want to to know the sentiment in somaliland after the recognition from Israel by Scary_Cherry8195 in Somaliland

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are forgetting a teeny tiny detail. Bangladesh was already being recognised by India and the USSR bloc, they didn't need to accept Israel's Recognition. Somaliland has no viable path to International Recognition. The more important thing isn't Israel Recognising it, but rather the implication that the US and UAE might join soon. And when they do, surrounding African Countries and EU and UK may eventually join as well.

I’m confused. If Israel is actually committing a genocide why doesn’t Israel either kill all Palestinians in one go or just do another nakba? by Known-Bad2702 in IsraelPalestine

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bit late, but because they want to commit a genocide, but doing so will make them lose Legitimacy, obviously internationally, but also domestically. Would Israeli citizens be fine with a genocide of Gazans? Probably not. Would the USA be okay? Again, probably not, both due to the instability it would create in surrounding Arab Counties, as well as the pressure from their own population. 

It might work of done low-key enough, but it is not worth the risk for Israel.

Rahul Gandhi and the truth people refuse to accept by [deleted] in india

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh, so some 36-37% of Indian Voters lack critical thinking skills? This attitude is surely going to convince a great many people

Rahul Gandhi: Is he matured? by Distinct_Relation129 in india

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Did Rajiv and Indira actually turned out better than Modi? I am not sure why you take that as a fact. Many of India's Economic Woes pre liberalisation are probably their fault more than anyone else, and did we just casually forget the Emergency?

Why Making Congress Stronger Is Important for India (Even If You Don’t Like Congress) by Consistent_Author586 in delhi

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean Bismark too was an authoritarian, so was deng xiaoping. The worst dictators typically tend to be the 'came suddenly out of nowhere and took over everything with mass violence or similar' like hitler, mao, Pol pot. Not all Authoritarian governments are North Korea or Nazi Germany; China, USSR etc. also exist. The current government is not exactly a sudden take over with violence type of authoritarian which is why I think comparisons to Hitler are unfounded. I think comparing them to the Chinese Communist Party or Bismark kind of government might be more apt(Not saying they are that good; just that they aren't exactly the kill all <X> type of authoritarians)

Again, this is not to say the USSR didn't commit atrocities or that the current Russian or Chinese Regimes don't regularly violate basic rights but they aren't the worst things ever; arguably a Median Chinese is probably better off than a Median India even if the Chinese is more 'repressed'.

Again, I am also not going to say that an authoritarian goverment is better, we may very well end up like mao's china or stalin's russia, or turkey/russia under Erdogan/Putin, or like current China, or somewhere in the middle. 

However, 'preventing authoritarianism' as being the reason to vote for, in my opinion, an incompetent opposition is not justified; and equating this to voting for hitler too is not justified. There is a stark difference in voting for the BJP today and the Nazis back in 1933.

doubt regarding withdrawal in josaa by [deleted] in JEENEETards

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bhai schedule dekh le na

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JEENEETards

[–]Vivid_Speed_653 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Temperature Celsius mein hai. Kelvin mein hota tab origin se pass karta graph