We're done with that. We're not going back to that. And if the best you can offer is "that won't happen this time" or "the world won't let it happen again" ...
Tell that to the Uighurs. And Yazidi. And Darfuri. And Tutsi. And ...
Oops, skipped the Rohingya. My bad.
You get the point.
If you think you can convince Israelis that living in a bi-national state where there's a possibility that Jews will again be subject to the whims of a non-Jewish majority is a good idea ... give it up. Won't happen. You're not going to out-persuade 2000 years of experience
That's not bigotry, btw. It could be Western Europeans hypothetically in charge instead of Arab Palestinians, and the response would be the same.
You, um, may or may not have heard this, but Jews have some relevant experience with Western Europeans, too.
And, to be honest ... that sucks. No, really, it does. Jews' collective trauma and experience isn't the Palestinians' fault, but they get to live with the consequences. It would be great if we hadn't been oppressed/killed with glee & abandon across the western & arab worlds for
centuries.
But, well, that happened. And it can't be undone.
Maybe with 2000 years of experience of NOT having that happen, you'll get a different answer. Hell, let's not be greedy. 1000 years. 500.
But Jews are still being attacked in the streets, as Jews, today.
We're still being murdered for being Jewish, today.
Our schools and synagogues still have to be fortresses. Today.
Today's not the day that "you'll be fine, we promise" is going to persuade. Sorry.
So while I'm sure @hahellyer absolutely means well and believes what he's writing, it's Fantasy Island bullshit because he just doesn't get it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So let's talk about this Idaho law, because this is not at all a fair description of it. Not even in the stretchiest sense.
In fact, the law is ... not terrible. It won't actually do what it's intended to do (bar schools from exploring & teaching critical race theory). Read it
Did Chauvin's defense attorney just elicit testimony from his own expert that a suspect who is prone and face down on the ground is LESS of a threat than in any other position?
Claims keeping him on the ground is "not a use of force" and was just "keeping him under control" ... holy shit.
Backed away from this on cross as though shot out of a cannon: If Floyd was feeling pain as a result of it, then it's a use of force
But there's also a whole history of women being believed when they falsely accuse Black men of misconduct that also exists, and needs to be reckoned with as well. Bottom line - let the process play out. But it does not look good for him.
When the first accusation came out, I suggested people ought to hold their opinions for more info. With the sheer number of accusations, in similar situations, and with at least some corroborating details of him actually communicating with them ... I lean toward "it's true"
I mean, it's either that or Watson has the remarkable bad luck of having randomly selected evil people willing to lie about him for money as his non-team-provided masseurs. Which would be weird. So my #Jets should stay away. But ...
He was invited to give a talk in a lecture series typically sponsored by the local Jewish federation and other strong supporters of the 2 state solution. Without notice to those entities, VCU simply listed them as sponsors. Of a talk whose views they oppose. 2
Unsurprisingly, they reached out to VCU and said "we don't support this person's views and don't want to be associated with them. We won't be sponsoring his speech unless a contrary view is presented. Take us off the list." 3
1) there are competing historical injustices betting evoked here - women's accusations betting dismissed out of hand, and women's accusations against Black men being accepted without question. Don't fall into either of those categories
2) If true, this would be VASTLY out of Watson's publicly known character. So what? Pretty sure almost none of you following me know him personally, and even if we did, too many people have secrets for that to mean anything beyond "it would be really disappointing if true"
3) none of us have any obligation at all to have an opinion on this, especially not until the details are known. Not one way or the other. If you're leaping to crucify him, what's wrong with you? To absolve him, same deal.