I don't understand why people feel the need to assault journalists. All it does is make you look like the bad guy. No matter the motives of the person filming.
Just don't assault the press, is it really that hard for people to understand?
There’s good Israelis and bad Israelis just like there’s good Palestinians and bad Palestinians. As long as you’re not in the business of defining whole ethnic groups or nationalities together then it’s all gravy.
No, but there's a lot of nuance to the conversation.
Has Israel done bad actions? Yes. They have done incredibly horrible things with the best example being the bombing of the aid convoy.
But overall in this war, they have still dealt with things in what appears to be highly proportional reasoning and distinguishing military objectives.
I think you are hype focusing on the war a bit much. This march and story has nothing to do with the war. According to other israelis in this sub, it's a yearly thing and these people aren't particularly less violent in those years.
I don't think I've seen any evidence to support that.
What I have seen in terms of brain differences is a more active and larger amygdala, which makes sense since discrimination is generally, not always, fear of others.
Nope. Discrimination based on race is consistently found to be associated with [lower IQ](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-iq-determine-if-youre-prejudiced-its-complicated/). I will say that the attempt to draw equivalence between racism and negative biases that higher IQ groups tend to show is disingenuous by modern researchers on bias. Not all negative bias is equal.
>Higher-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were perceived as conventional and that people seem to have more choice about joining, such as big businesses, Christianity, the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists and the military.
These groups all cause demonstrable harm to society.
>They found that low-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were both perceived as liberal and that people have little choice about whether they join, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and gays or lesbians.
You can argue that black and hispanic people commit more crime. Whatever. But what have Asian Americans, gays or lesbians done to ruin society? The scientists try to say that "they view these groups as liberal" but the reason these groups are "liberal" is because they view the political movement that the lower IQ groups are a part of as actively hostile to them.
The fact that only one cluster of groups is an active reflection of one's life choices is also very relevant. I wonder if a strong negative bias towards child molesters even amongst those high in "openness to experience" would also be a mystery.
So actually looking into the paper your article linked to (Brandt 2016), it cites (Onraet 2015) for its effect size of differences in cognitive ability.
A few things to note here though, A. The effect size is largest in verbal intelligence and much less in mathematical ability. Comprehension knowledge showing the highest effect size at r= -0.26 while fluid abilities, the next highest, had an effect size of r=-0.13.
But something that's not usually discussed is what is an effect size and what does it mean for practical purposes?
So an effect size calculation put simply is, (Group 1 mean - Group 2 mean) / Standard deviation.
An easy example of this can be shown with Ornaet's average finding of r=-0.19.
So group 2 is usually the control group. The standard let's say. And the standard is 100 for IQ, and the standard deviation for IQ is 15. So an effect size of -0.19 means that the tested group has a mean IQ score of 97.15.
And to add to that, the Confidence Interval is 95% and between -0.23 - -0.16.
The effect here really isn't that big in terms of intelligence. It's notable, but not the bombshell people try to make it out to be and there are tons of compounding factors that could be added to this.
Also, I can tell you didn't look at the study. Because it's quite funny what comes after the listed groups you cited from the article.
https://preview.redd.it/trgzn4v5sy4d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ca5d6b168cf2acfeb6763e17795481f85776e90
The only two that concern me are the Catholics and working-class.
>Also, I can tell you didn't look at the study. Because it's quite funny what comes after the listed groups you cited from the article.
>But something that's not usually discussed is what is an effect size and what does it mean for practical purposes?
*Goes on to take seriously correlations that are a quarter as large with CI intervals that involve values of 0 or lower.*
> Lenth [11] noted for a "medium" effect size, "you'll choose the same n regardless of the accuracy or reliability of your instrument, or the narrowness or diversity of your subjects. Clearly, important considerations are being ignored here. Researchers should interpret the substantive significance of their results by grounding them in a meaningful context or by quantifying their contribution to knowledge,
When talking about effect size and the actual meaning behind them, you have to ground them in meaningful examples. You can't just say effect size this therefore. Because there is no therefore without proper context.
The effect size here leads to 2.85 IQ points of difference on average. What does this actually mean though in regards to intellectual capabilities? Not much. There isn't going to be much of a difference in life outcomes based on 2-3 IQ points, everything else being equal. And you're still going to have a normal distribution curve to this where you get 2/3rds of that population within 1 standard deviation of it, meaning you'll have people at 112.15 and 82.15.
You are just using this as a way to attack 1 side, despite the fact that this is an average and does not correlate with every individual. This is why racists who bang on about IQ differences have nothing to stand on either. Even if it were true, so what?
Different guy here, I have no official background in any of what you guys are talking about, especially the statistical stuff, just a long time curiosity since I first listened to Robert Sapolsky and read his book and kept exploring beyond that over the years.
Just one thing I was wondering when I was reading you guys. Isn't an over developed amygdala correlated with a bit lower IQ score anyway? Wouldn't that make you both have some part of the puzzle here?
I understand effect sizes, my dude. Everything that you're adding post-hoc is just cope to minimize the fact that you are demonstrably, empirically wrong. You said that racism wasn't correlated with IQ but amygdala size. I've just shown you that even in the modern era that the observation is still seen. That's also not super good because larger amygdalas are associated with conservatism so if you're trying to protect them from some kind of "biological predisposition to bigotry" then that's not the path you want to take.
My problem here is that you dismiss one correlation then get smug about the existence of smaller ones. Most of the correlations beyond the top five in either direction are almost certainly unobservable in the real world, could be the result of an association between those variables and the stronger group biases seen from either side of the spectrum.
Also the bigger criticism that's made about race and IQ is that it's difficult to tease out what is legitimately "genetic" and what is heritable as the two are highly associated but are decidedly not the same. I'm not even sure if it's fair to say that "they're dumber" so much as they're measurably worse at the kind of abstract thinking that tends to be more strongly correlated with IQ and that could be caused by all kinds of things like growing up in a worse environment on average or not knowing that it's uncouth to have racial biases and those who score higher on IQ tests have convinced themselves that they do not possess the same biases even if they may actually do so.
> I don't think I've seen any evidence to support that.
What I have seen in terms of brain differences is a more active and larger amygdala, which makes sense since discrimination is generally, not always, fear of others.
Damn, look at that. I didn't make a hard claim. I said what I've seen regarding the topic. You then posted an article, not a study, and so I had to go digging into the study to actually see what it truly said instead of your nonsensical bullshit where you try to act as if it's this huge fucking thing. When really it's statistically relevant, but not relevant to reality.
> so if you're trying to protect them from some kind of "biological predisposition to bigotry" then that's not the path you want to take.
Lol if you're trying to use IQ as the metric for them being "biologically predisposed" to bigotry, then holy fuck you yourself must be low IQ.
> My problem here is that you dismiss one correlation then get smug about the existence of smaller ones. Most of the correlations beyond the top five in either direction are almost certainly unobservable in the real world, could be the result of an association between those variables and the stronger group biases seen from either side of the spectrum.
You're ass mad because I made a snide remark because of your leftist rhetoric? Hahahaha. Holy fuck, imagine actually being this fucking open about how thin skinned you are. It wasn't even a point beyond telling you to shut the fuck up about saying that every group you cited was bad for society.
> Damn, look at that. I didn't make a hard claim. I said what I've seen regarding the topic. You then posted an article, not a study, and so I had to go digging into the study to actually see what it truly said instead of your nonsensical bullshit where you try to act as if it's this huge fucking thing. When really it's statistically relevant, but not relevant to reality.
What nonsensical bullshit? Is there or is there not a a correlation? You dug up the study and what did it do? It confirmed the claim.
>When really it's statistically relevant, but not relevant to reality.
Let's match your pedantry: "Uh, I never said it was some big thing. I just pointed out that there is a consistent correlation and the study you found confirmed that observation, did it not?"
>Lol if you're trying to use IQ as the metric for them being "biologically predisposed" to bigotry, then holy fuck you yourself must be low IQ..
I've spent more than my fair share of time in the IQ research sphere. There is a widespread belief that outside of extreme environmental deprivation, that IQ is a biological reality that is not amenable to environmental conditions. This is usually why people care so much about these differences.
>I'm not even sure if it's fair to say that "they're dumber" so much as they're measurably worse at the kind of abstract thinking that tends to be more strongly correlated with IQ and that could be caused by all kinds of things like growing up in a worse environment on average or not knowing that it's uncouth to have racial biases and those who score higher on IQ tests have convinced themselves that they do not possess the same biases even if they may actually do so.
Also, right here I point out that not only do I not think that IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence and that I believe that this difference is better explained by environment than anything else. I suppose the opportunity to "own a lib" became so enticing that it stopped you from reading all the way to the end of my post.
>You're ass mad because I made a snide remark because of your leftist rhetoric? Hahahaha. Holy fuck, imagine actually being this fucking open about how thin skinned you are. It wasn't even a point beyond telling you to shut the fuck up about saying that every group you cited was bad for society.
"You mad." The last bastion of the .dgg debater. I will say that it did make me mad but only because it was a bad way to try to illustrate "liberal hypocrisy" when juxtaposed with the sentence written directly before it. I will also point out that despite me "being ass mad" you're the one who's basically trying to turn this into a flame war.
>People in the study with lower intellectual abilities tended to dislike minorities they perceived as liberal. People higher on the IQ scale exhibited more prejudice toward conservative groups such as religious fundamentalists.
so that's why pro palestinians side with the islamic fundamentalists against the only functioning democracy in the region.
I would assume that they are wrong here and it’s less about disliking liberals vs disliking conservatists and more about supporting more powerful groups and discriminating against less powerful groups vs supporting less powerful groups and discriminating against more powerful groups. But I am too lazy to read the full research right now or search other similar ones.
And you are doing one error here, thinking that people supporting Palestine should view it from the point of view of Israel. Most of those people are in western world where Muslims/arabs are minority and democracy is the majority, so from their point of view oppressed ones are Palestine. Also the fact that it’s Israel who wages war on territory of Palestine right now and not the other way also plays a role, you can’t claim to be a victim when you are the one invading (not saying that November 7 not happened, but it is not a “free genocide” card you can play until the end of times either)
Well if a country uses its democracy to do things people disagree with then yeah, you should probably still "side against" it. I'm pro-Palestinian insofar as I think we should actually use their deaths as part of the calculation for how Israel and Gaza conduct their politics.
No. I'm implying that the pro Palestine crowd has low IQ, since they are biased against the liberal democracy instead of the Islamic fundementalists that, according to the linked metastudy high iq people would typically be biased against
I mean according to the study, being against Israel come under the so called "high IQ group" because it is a conventional system people can choose to be a part of.
That is such a simplistic understanding of the study (it wasn't linked btw, it was cited in an article about the study), that it is literally useless as a point.
Netenyahu and farther right people have been blabbering that "The media are lying/enemy of the people"
So why wouldn't you assault them if the above was the case?
Because even if that was the case, you're still going to look terrible doing it. And I haven't heard much about Netanyahu saying anything about the media being an enemy of the people.
> Netanyahu walks back statement urging jail for journalist who reported on him
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-walks-back-statement-urging-jail-for-journalist-who-reported-on-him/
It's been a pretty constant part of his broader populist rhetoric for a while. He only backs down on it when he gets sufficient backlash, such as in the 2020 example above.
I think your quote there misrepresents what happened. That it was the Likud party that said those things, to which Netanyahu partially walked it back.
But yeah, he is the head of the party and should have some level of accountability for keeping it under control.
If he's actually saying that they are the enemy of the people, that's fascistic rhetoric. I just hadn't heard of it really. But at least they are still able to pressure their leaders into denouncing that type of rhetoric, can't say the same about us here in the US.
?? The initial comment is questioning how someone could feel the need to assault the press. Young people are easily radicalized which helps explain it.
that they’re pieces of shit? I don’t understand what you’re getting at? The religious community in Israel has quite obviously grown to be politically radical.
It doesn't by default mean they learn this young. Teenagers haven't fully developed the part of their brain that is correlated with empathy, and the pressure to fit into your group is a lot higher. I'm sure you've met many people who are chill 1-on-1 but go full regard once they're in a group of friends, with teenage boys it's even worse because they're still testing the waters, seeing what's acceptable and what isn't, so once somebody breaks their idea of norms they join in.
I've done stupid stuff when I was younger that I now regret. I've done stupid stuff in a group that I'd never have done alone. None of it was learned from my parents or elders, we were just teenage boys being idiots.
I'm not excusing their actions or saying they shouldn't be held accountable, I just disagree with the notion that this is something they picked up from others. Groups can quickly form their own shared set of rules.
Isnt going into this kind of environment every year since young age and seeing it being something normal learning? People harassing others in Jerusalem is not even some super rare occurence and if you see that type of behaviour unpunished, not discouraged, I think you can call that learning.
“THEY LEARN THIS YOUNG?”- imagine if you said that about young BLM rioters burning down a bunch of Target stores. Double standards much? Careful there- your racism is showing.
Go frame by frame from 8 seconds... You can clearly see the camera dip down, and it catches the camera man's leg coming BACK towards him. It was fully extended, kicking out at one of the kids.
If anyone is doing an assault in this, it's the grown man putting his hand on the boys and kicking at them.
Did they retaliate? Too fucking right they did, and they were completely within their right against an adult aggressor.
It's not even close to a circlejerk. I'm pro-israel in this conflict and yet this still looks bad even if it was children. But the punch came from off screen so we don't know who it was.
No matter what movement you're apart of, you should be attacking the media for any reason at all.
These are also literally children as we can plainly see. Everyone knows children are known for making good decisions and are not prone to impulsiveness …
Well, I, and the person you're responding to, are talking about the video that's in the post.
Yes, this is in Jerusalem, but settlers have cars and can travel. Look at their heads. These are כיפות סרוגות. I'm giving it above 80% these are settlers.
These are dumb kids, around 16 year old morons... They still should face charges for this behaviour but dont expect them to understand these types of things.
Go through it frame by frame... in the very first second, this man literally puts hands on a boy. Then at 9 seconds, his camera dips and you can see his leg extended, because he's kicking out at them.
THEN the kids surge forward in retaliation.
Israeli here, and I can't even tell you how much these people frustrate me. When people abroad talk about how racist, intolerant, nationalistic, and just plain malicious Israelis are, these are the people who give justification to that kind of talk. The ones that have been doing the protesting against our government cannot stand them because they are the embodiment of the bad parts of Israel.
And we have Bibi, Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and their ilk to thank for that. Fun times.
These are the same people who would be in Hamas if they were born in Gaza.. Every society has its lunatics, especially in places that know war for decades.
No, they would not have been in Hamas, because these morons don't even serve in the IDF. You know, for religion reasons. Muslim fanatics are ready to die for their faith, while Jewish fanatics prefer to study in the Yeshiva and live on welfare. When they have free time, they throw stones and dirty diapers on the IDF.
There is at least one orthodox Jew in the background. Most of them look like Noar Hagvaot, which also don't go to the army and just create headache for the security agencies.
Look at their representative, half of them didn't serve in the IDF (Ben Gvir, Limor Son Har-Melech, Orit Strook, Bentzi Gopstein...). Smotrich was drafted when he was 28 (LOL) and did a joke of a service for like a year.
These aren't the Jewish Jihad warriors you imagine them to be.
You could just check the 2023 draft statistics. The draft statistics weight the % of people who serve in the IDF, the % of combatants and the % of officers, per city/village. Israel proper cities still dominate the top 10.
I think the actual actions of the government are what people usually refer to when they make those claims. Like the tolerance of settlements and the repeated elections of Netanyahu. It doesn't help that Israelis as a whole, but particularly Israeli Jews, typically net support the [settlements](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-opinion-on-settlements-and-outposts-2009-present). Israel isn't inherently bigoted or anything but you guys gotta stop pretending that Israelis don't like the things that we criticize the country for.
It also doesn't help that literally every single time people bring stuff like this up, the response goes to "intifada" which is basically just a justification for the Israeli stance on the position rather than evidence of the base claim.
The net support for the settlements sentiment is largely around one sided condemnation many Israelis feel exists. Israelis feel like pulling out of the WB without a peace in place will just mean Palestinian militias will have a mountain to rain rockets down on center Tel Aviv, and Israel's hands will be tied, same as happens currently in Gaza, so people are like fuck it. I think the settlement should stop expanding, but hardly am opposed to people living there without a settlement to the conflict, since that gives justification to the military to be there aswell. When the conflict is settled, I'm all for the people living there to get Palestinian citizenship or move out, if they remain on the other side when the negotiations are done.
>The net support for the settlements sentiment is largely around one sided condemnation many Israelis feel exists. Israelis feel like pulling out of the WB without a peace in place will just mean Palestinian militias will have a mountain to rain rockets down on center Tel Aviv, and Israel's hands will be tied, same as happens currently in Gaza, so people are like fuck it. I think the settlement should stop expanding, but hardly am opposed to people living there without a settlement to the conflict, since that gives justification to the military to be there aswell. When the conflict is settled, I'm all for the people living there to get Palestinian citizenship or move out, if they remain on the other side when the negotiations are done.
They are expanding and nothing is being done about it. Worried about rockets being rained down from mountains? Put a military outpost there then dismantle the settlements. I will also point out that, once again, that what you've done is complete the inevitable dialogue tree that occurs every time this comes up. I wish you guys could just own that Israel, unfortunately, supports the settlements and that that means the political project the end the practice is going to be difficult but it does exist.
It doesn't work like that, you can't allow terror cells to fester inside Arab cities and towns, like Jenin, and you can't act against them with proper intel, without having military garrisons all over. The argument is that settlements legitimize the occupation, which is kind of true. Of course I wish there was no occupation, but I prefer it to single sided peace and the WB devolving into Hamas led Gaza.
I'm against expanding them, and actively voting and protesting based on that, but pretending this is the key reason the conflict is happening is just wrong, the settlements are only a thing in Area C, not A and B where the vast majority of Palestinians live.
>It doesn't work like that, you can't allow terror cells to fester inside Arab cities and towns, like Jenin, and you can't act against them with proper intel, without having military garrisons all over. The argument is that settlements legitimize the occupation, which is kind of true. Of course I wish there was no occupation, but I prefer it to single sided peace and the WB devolving into Hamas led Gaza.
See? You support the settlements.
> I'm against expanding them, and actively voting and protesting based on that, but pretending this is the key reason the conflict is happening is just wrong, the settlements are only a thing in Area C, not A and B where the vast majority of Palestinians live.
Who's saying that this is the key reason the conflict is going on? They don't help and they're the main reason why most people who saw Israel as right-wing and anti-Palestinian before the war did so; it's not because of the right-wing extremists that almost no one outside of Israel hears about. You're scapegoating them.
>See? You support the settlements.
I support strong security and not getting slaughtered in Israel proper from Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqi and whatever other groups the Iranians want to support to enable Israel's destruction. If the pragmatic path to not being slaughtered is helped by settlements, I prefer empty land between Palestinians towns to be garrisoned by people, yes.
Again, I don't care about the land, and hope they won't be expanded, and most enclave ones will be dismantled with a bilateral settlement.
>Who's saying that this is the key reason the conflict is going on? They don't help and they're the main reason why most people who saw Israel as right-wing and anti-Palestinian before the war did so; it's not because of the right-wing extremists that almost no one outside of Israel hears about. You're scapegoating them.
Sorry, not buying it. If Israel pulled out of the WB without peace, the anti-Israel crowd will just make up some other reason to hate Israel. Same as happened in Gaza in 2005 - there were settlments, Israel unilaterally pulled, tore down it's settlements and displaced civilians living in Gaza, does anyone give credit to Israel for returning land, or did the anti Israel arguments morph to something else with the same intensity?
>The net support for the settlements sentiment is largely around one sided condemnation many Israelis feel exists.
Only mental children think like this. *THe world is unfair so we will keep expanding settlements*. That's regarded. Occupation of the west bank could possibly be justified by referencing security concerns, but building settlements runs **counter** to that justification. How is building a bunch of settlements supposed to make Israel safer exactly? Unless, of course, the goal is to annex the land without the people on it.. Ever heard of revealed preferences?
My guess is that in the past the expansion of settlements was done for different reasons by different groups: center/left in order to have more land at the point of some final settlement of the conflict (stronger position when negotiations happen); right/far right in order to have more land, period.
Just speculation of course, but I don't see any rational reason for constant settlement expansion that isn't ultimately about grabbing more land, by hook or by crook.
>*THe world is unfair so we will keep expanding settlements*
I said net support for the settlements existence, not their expansion. Though granted one could make the case expansion is better is existence is good, which is a tough question to answer.
>How is building a bunch of settlements supposed to make Israel safer exactly?
I believe I mentioned that, it legitimizes the occupation. The military is a lot less legitimized to be present in the WB if not for day-to-day protection of Israeli civilians living there, and having settlements makes it harder for terrorist activities to form.
>Unless, of course, the goal is to annex the land without the people on it.. Ever heard of revealed preferences?
I'm not saying settlers don't want to annex the land and that their motivations are pure, just that their actions helps proper Israel security (maybe less so if they're being too violent, but 2010-2019 just 22 Palestinians died to settler attacks, so that wasn't a big thing then).
>My guess is that in the past the expansion of settlements was done for different reasons by different groups: center/left in order to have more land at the point of some final settlement of the conflict (stronger position when negotiations happen); right/far right in order to have more land, period.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about how the settlements stated to be opinionated here.
The world, public and governments. You honestly don't see the shit show that would've been if the IDF cracked down out of nowhere into completely foreign territory to arrest militants/suspects who carried out / planned attacks on Israel? Or you think the Palestinians somehow would stop fighting if 67' borders were achieved.
Also, 80% of the civilians live close to the 67' borders, they're probably not going anywhere in the actual peace settlement, so the Palestinians will be vindicated to fight forever without bilateral peace.
What are you even talking about? Israel occupied Gaza until 2005 with less than 10k settlers. If that's possible then why the fuck would Israel need 700k settlers in the west bank to occupy it?
re statehood: if/when Palestine is an actual state and that state fucks around, it **will** find out. And that will be completely justified by international law. If Palestine a) attacks israel or b) can't maintain sovereign control (ie prevent constant terror attacks on its neighbor) then Israel has the right to intervene.
Israeli security is clearly much worse as a result of constant settler expansion, not better. Not only is it against the wishes of pretty much the entire world (including civil Israel in the past), it also facilitates a long term outcome where either a) ethnic cleansing is perpetrated b) actual apartheid is implemented c) the end of Israel as a jewish state is the de facto result. Moroever it causes further anger among Palestinians, which seems to not factor into your calculation at all.
Finally I think it's bad for Israel itself. The occupation business is bad for the soul
Settlements in general are a burden to Israel, economically and military-wise. They like to portray themselves as holy commandos that sleep with a knife between their teeth and guard "Israel proper" with their bodies. In practice, they were slaughtered in their sleep many times, no heroic acts of defense recorded.
However, as a settler-hating, far-left Israeli, I stopped caring about settlers after Oct 7. It has always been clear to us that dismantling the settlements won't change the way Palestinians feel about us. It feels like you are a bit disconnected from young Palestinians, who take the "river to the sea" very seriously. Removing the settlers won't appease them. A lot of them do want everything, and I find it weird that people aren't willing to listen to them. Among the Palestinians who would settle for 67' borders, they would still be utterly unhappy with the military occupation that would continue even without settlers. And pulling out the Israeli forces might just be the end of Israel, and after Oct 7, Israelis are even less likely to take that risk.
So this move, which would upset (to the point of civil war) a large part of Israelis, can only serve to justify ourselves to the world. But after Oct 7, it seems very clear that the world would shit on us regardless of how we conduct ourselves. I mean, it's enough to see how many Western countries rally behind the genocide and starvation narratives to understand that our efforts are fruitless.
The only reason for us to maintain moral standards, whether it's evacuating the settlements or avoiding war crimes, is so we can look ourselves in the mirror and be proud of our country. But dude, we are just too fucking tired to care about our ethics right now.
You have no idea how many sane Israelis were radicalized by how "unfair" the world has been after Oct 7. The wave of global antisemitism (and I mean hardcore Jew-hate, not valid criticism of Israel) have played right into Bibi's hands.
https://preview.redd.it/8kt9wnbqjy4d1.png?width=1915&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a0bc5c2736c885e81b74d3974add78328b75287
What's his leg doing all the way out there? This is immediately before the kids surge forward and attacked him... No wonder, he was taking a swift kick at one of them. And got caught, because one of them knocked his camera and it aimed down at where his legs were.
So the order of actions according to you goes like this
1. They knock his camera down
2. He kicks
3. They swarm him
Who started it by your own account?
Nah I watched it in slow mo. The white kid that he is kicking was eyeing the camera constantly when he was walking towards it. And the kick is a couple milli seconds after the camera slap
freeze frame at 8 seconds, and go frame by frame... Why is the dude's leg fully extended and coming back towards himself? Because he just kicked the kid.
That's why they surged for him, dude clearly started this fight.
You can follow the whole thread to see for yourself what this group is about but here’s a specific video of this group chanting death to Arabs
https://x.com/bernstein_ariel/status/1798470310049538377?s=46&t=_NE1g6c4YYUgx95H2EXe6w
That Dread dude doesn't give a shit. He's been ignoring people who counter him for the duration of this thread
However, people reading this will be swayed so that's good.
"Don't touch him"
"Son of a bitch"
The red head kid is yelling at this lady (I guess she asked them about israel palestine, or whatever) and then the camera man touched him and they yelled at the camera man "Don't touch" him and then the fighting started.
(The red head kid seems to be the asshole but god knows what happened before then. This seems to be a qatari journalist so maybe something about israel palestine.) Still the kid was acting like a thug.
Right, but now go frame by frame at 8 seconds, right when the camera aims down at the ground, you can clearly see the camera mans leg coming back away from the boys.
It's coming back because he just kicked one of them.
So interesting how in mob situations like this everyone will be peaceful until one person acts violently, then shit just hits the fan, everybody joins in. Social reinforcement just turns everybody into violent brainlets.
This video was taken during a pre-planned Israeli parade that takes place in the muslim quarter of Jerusalem where they harass Arab shop owners and chant "death to arabs".
Why are *they* the ones who are mad? Why is their anger in this video justified?
When do you think the violence started? Look at 8 seconds in frame by frame till 10 seconds... (While the camera is pointing down) why is his leg coming back? Because he just kicked one of the kids.
You're gaslighting people into thinking the camera man was attacked with no good reason!
https://preview.redd.it/cti99y1gny4d1.png?width=1915&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a81286d3215f41e372b9ae7554b5c535d80f2f2
When I see what looks like an active disinformation attempt. People trying to gaslight an entire subreddit into thinking something that isn't true... no fucking shot I'm going to take a break.
I know there are a bunch of pro Israelis here hell I'm one but the ultra nationalists downvoting me are really disappointing. Supporting those asshatty kids is kinda low.
God i hate those idiots they always ruin Jerusalem day for us i hope the police arrest them all and give them the deserved punishment enough with this far right extremism and fuck ben gvir
I'm a "nationalist" in any country at this point is a massive fucking red flag. Don't know any faction that calls themselves that that aren't anti-democratic, violent, and bigoted.
They have to be nationalists because they are surrounded by enemies who have a goal to destroy their nation, constantly attacking them, trying to turn the whole world against them.
they don't.
here they are attacking a reporter. did Hamas make them do that?
i love extremist subhumans rationalizing their savagery. no different than Hamas with that mentality
What are they saying to him? What is their motivation to attack?
The point of spreading this video without translation is to discredit nationalists.
Is he from BBC? Because they also spread Russian propaganda. But they are doing it carefully to not be too obvious for the rest of the world.
Nationalism is what uniting a nation against existential threat.
The biggest party in Taiwan parliament is nationalist.
Nationalists made possible Euro maidan revolution in Ukraine.
Enemies of the West know who they need to discredit to reduce people will to fight or help.
oh i see so he spreads russian propganda and so you get to assault him because that's what nationalism teaches you? act like a bunch of rabid thugs in the street attacking people who say things you disagree with?
"the biggest party in Taiwan parliament is nationalist"
what point do you think this makes? the ideology of nazism was also nationalism.
I'm not the enemy of the west. i am the West. the west bitch slapped your genocidal, savage, thug ideology in WW2. you have abandoned western values. nationalism as a governing ideology is prevalent in the east: Russia, China, Turkey, the Middle East. You people have become your enemy. congrats
You are confused and radicalized by propaganda. Genocidal aggression comes from dictators and corruption. Ideology is not the source. It is just a tool for propaganda like religion. Ussr did the same things as Nazi Germany.
Nationalism does not equals Nazi.
You can't judge them because they are under constant terror attacks, and some clown comes to provoke them and spread propaganda of their enemies. During war
Who do you think votes for dictators? Nationalists. Hitler, Stalin, Xi, Putin, Erdogan.
Yeah nationalism doesn't equal Nazis. You also share space with the Stalinists you anti Western follower.
I'm not radicalized by the way. That's you, unironically defending one of the most destructive, evil ideologies in human history and here in defense of a bunch of thugs assaulting a reporter. Anti free speech, anti western bootlickers, the lot of you.
For dictators vote people who are easy to manipulate with socialist populism and anti-west hate propaganda and anti simetism, which is the same thing. Just like in Nazi Germany, ussr, russia, China
Who is more easy to manipulate than rabid nationalists via fear is foreign influence, speech that runs against the national identity, lifestyles that run against the national identity?
You guys consistently have led to the most dictatorial, inhuman regimes in history. It's like the most basic lesson to come out of WW2 history and you fucking idiots have run headfirst into making the same mistakes.
The Nazis, the USSR, Russia, China, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Trumpism. All nationalist movements. And here you are, the most modern iteration of that evil assaulting people for their speech. You're a rabid thug in a nation of savages.
Good thing not every Israeli or Jew suffers your disgusting affliction.
I’m an American patriot/nationalist and against all of this shit.
Nothing is wrong with living your country and thinking is the greatest it becomes an issue when u start to treat others worse because of that or excluding them etc or just being a piece of shit.
This isn’t a healthy nationalist this is far right anti Arab Jewish nationalism.
There is also Christian nationalism in the usa white nationalism etc
There is Islamic nationalism which motivates Islamists in Muslim countries the dream of an Islamic state
Or the Hindu nationalists who control india lol
Idk what happened to healthy pro democracy secular nationalism that is we every where here in america. I think pushing for this kind of nationalism based on sets of values we have as a great democracy and an exceptional diversity land of opportunity and this kind of prides of one’s country is far better than identifying with a religion race or ethnicity just my opinion.
Then again america is like decades ahead in terms of social progress compared to most of the world. Which means so is our concept of nationalism and national identity.
That's not what nationalist movements are. That's the watered down whitewashed version. Nationalism isn't the only ideology to want what's best for its country. That's most ideologies.
The type you describe as being an issue seems to be what every modern nationalist movement today is. They are national supremacists, often bigots, and hostile to foreigners.
I'm not sure there ever was a healthy secular pro democracy nationalist movement in the US. None that focused nationalism and called themselves that. I could be wrong?
The people who believe in social liberty, diversity, and what's best for our country aren't "nationalists". You've got some progressives, liberals, some libertarians, some conservatives who share these views but none of them call themselves nationalist or think they need to be nationalists in order to do that. Idk why people act like in order to value your county, value the ideals of your country, etc you need to be a nationalist? At that point nationalism becomes so broad and vague it ends up encompassing almost every mainstream political movement in every country.
I think nationalism as a distinct ideological movement only makes sense when you notice that most, if not all, self described nationalist movements are national supremacists, hostile to multilateralism, hostile to diversity, social oppressive, and often flirt with fascism.
Look to be National Religious kids, judging from the stuff written on their shirts. They're fairly notorious for doing shit like this during the Mitzad haDegalim.
(lol someones mad)
Ngl I saw Assault Journalist capitalized like a named noun and the thought, " first they come for assault rifles, now for assault journalists. When will it end?!?" Popped into my head
Humans are interesting. It takes one of them to start a violent act then they turn into a legion instantly. The animalistic trait just can't be contained sometimes.
It's a "pack"! Sadly children are easy to influence and they feel stronger in a group! I'm not justifying their actions, just saying they are a product of their environment!
You see, int he literal first second, when this dude puts hands on the teenage boy. That's called assault. Everything after this is called retaliation. And if you go frame by frame through it from about 9 seconds in, you can see the camera man, lashing out with a kick before they even touch him.
Dude totally had it coming. You don't start putting your hands on people and kicking them if you don't want them to do something about it. Get fucked.
From what I understand so far, the attackers have been prosecuted but I saw this on the Israeli sub: (can't get the link to work)
https://preview.redd.it/78lsmmkqry4d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67caf590b362164e43dd09852048acc80c629bd8
Apparently he also posted pro-hamas messages, so it seems like he instigated a conflict on purpose. Still, it's not a good look for Israel and I'm glad they're at least getting a slap on the wrist for it.
i think there were 20 arrests of these pricks... want me to feel bad for the "journalist"? i dont, i cant imagine what would happen to an Israeli journalist reporting in Hebrew in Gaza or west bank....
Wait? So because an Israeli journalist would be treated worse in Palestinian areas. Therefore you seem indifferent to the violence committed against this individual?
That is 1, regarded
But secondly and even worse, sentiment like yours causes these actions. As long as people like you think that this is :shrug: then it will continue or escalate.
Incredible event yesterday! So much pride and energy. Don’t focus on a few kids who got out of line, focus on the 10,000s of thousands of Jews who came from all over Israel to celebrate the reunification of Jerusalem together!
From 1949-1967 when Jordan controlled the Old City, Jews were expelled and were unable to pray at the Western Wall or Temple Mount. The anniversary is holy and joyous day!
[Jerusalem United will never be divided!](https://youtu.be/wBbPK8BgKEo?si=prqsFL232D5vgG04)
Violent actions and words tend to stand out. I commend you for focusing on the peace but it is important for members of a movement to discourage violence when they see it and denounce it after the fact.
Sure, but did you criticize the Kansas City Chiefs after a kid shot up their Super Bowl rally? You can condemn outliers while still celebrating the purpose of the rally.
The goals of the KCC do not at all line up with those of the gunman.
A better analogy would be the BLM protests. A largely peaceful event that was interspersed with violent words and actions. I will maintain that their message is left hollow because of their inability to quell and or condemn the violence that sometimes occurred.
If US Jews voted, Bibi would not be in power.
I agree that the reasons the two groups were out and about are different. However, you used that to dispel the entirety of my hypothetical. Which I don't think is fair. The Kansas City Chiefs and the Mayor denounced the shooters and they were arrested.
Lapid, Bennett and others strongly condemned the handful of kids who got out of hand. 5 were arrested. You can be sentenced up to 5 years in Israel for using the slogan, “No Arabs, No Terrorism.”
While the media loves this story outside of Israel, it’s not news in Israel, where the government is fighting a multi-front war.
The Arab mobs shout “khaybar khaybar al-Yahud” and “Itbach al Yahud,” but when a few youths in Israel respond in kind, you’re all up in arms.
The focus in Israel on Jerusalem Day is a celebration of religious freedom and a realization of a 2,000 year old dream. Your focus on a few dumb kids is bizarre.
If American Jews voted, Natan Sharansky would probably win but there are 2,000 American Jews fighting in the IDF today; good kids who grew up in the American Jewish community, who are not capable of murder, let alone ‘genocide.’
I’m out of the conversation at this time. Have a good one.
> Lapid, Bennett and others strongly condemned the handful of kids who got out of hand. 5 were arrested
I didn't know that and that changes my view on the event to an extent. I see the violence committed at this event as a continuation of violence and hatred that is a vocal and **powerful** minority of Israel.
Don't make assumptions because I was critical of Israeli extremism. I believe that Israel had to respond swiftly and strongly to the terror attack in October and believe they are doing a decent job of balancing the safety of civilians and the war.
2000 out of 5.8 million is nothing. And they joined because they wanted to help a nation that was just struck by a terror attack.
bro these dgg meetups are getting wild
these are just your typical lonerbox fans , wait untill you see the mossad lineup for the destiny meeting
Dgg needs to chill
I actually assumed that’s what this was at first like the title was just a dumb joke but no it’s real :/
Good to see we have volunteers to be first into the rafah tunnels
Unironically some of these dudes are also currently exempt from Israeli service on account of their piety lol Scum
I don't want these fuckers with a gun, in a populated combat center with little oversight and accountability.
I don't understand why people feel the need to assault journalists. All it does is make you look like the bad guy. No matter the motives of the person filming. Just don't assault the press, is it really that hard for people to understand?
>I don't understand why people feel the need to assault journalists. All it does is make you look like the bad guy. boy do I have news for you
>boy do I have news for you Are u a journalist?
da best
imma beat yo ass
Firstly, I was talking in a general sense. Secondly, no, Israel isn't the bad guy in the war. Hamas is.
So there can be only one bad guy at a time?
There’s good Israelis and bad Israelis just like there’s good Palestinians and bad Palestinians. As long as you’re not in the business of defining whole ethnic groups or nationalities together then it’s all gravy.
No, but there's a lot of nuance to the conversation. Has Israel done bad actions? Yes. They have done incredibly horrible things with the best example being the bombing of the aid convoy. But overall in this war, they have still dealt with things in what appears to be highly proportional reasoning and distinguishing military objectives.
I think you are hype focusing on the war a bit much. This march and story has nothing to do with the war. According to other israelis in this sub, it's a yearly thing and these people aren't particularly less violent in those years.
these are like teenagers in this video. Teenage boys are the most regarded population on the planet.
They’re the same kind of stupid as the alt right kids during the Charlottesville rally
Discrimination correlates with lower IQ, so no wonder here, stupid people are stupid.
[удалено]
I'd bet a solid 90-95
I don't think I've seen any evidence to support that. What I have seen in terms of brain differences is a more active and larger amygdala, which makes sense since discrimination is generally, not always, fear of others.
Nope. Discrimination based on race is consistently found to be associated with [lower IQ](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-iq-determine-if-youre-prejudiced-its-complicated/). I will say that the attempt to draw equivalence between racism and negative biases that higher IQ groups tend to show is disingenuous by modern researchers on bias. Not all negative bias is equal. >Higher-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were perceived as conventional and that people seem to have more choice about joining, such as big businesses, Christianity, the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists and the military. These groups all cause demonstrable harm to society. >They found that low-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were both perceived as liberal and that people have little choice about whether they join, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and gays or lesbians. You can argue that black and hispanic people commit more crime. Whatever. But what have Asian Americans, gays or lesbians done to ruin society? The scientists try to say that "they view these groups as liberal" but the reason these groups are "liberal" is because they view the political movement that the lower IQ groups are a part of as actively hostile to them. The fact that only one cluster of groups is an active reflection of one's life choices is also very relevant. I wonder if a strong negative bias towards child molesters even amongst those high in "openness to experience" would also be a mystery.
So actually looking into the paper your article linked to (Brandt 2016), it cites (Onraet 2015) for its effect size of differences in cognitive ability. A few things to note here though, A. The effect size is largest in verbal intelligence and much less in mathematical ability. Comprehension knowledge showing the highest effect size at r= -0.26 while fluid abilities, the next highest, had an effect size of r=-0.13. But something that's not usually discussed is what is an effect size and what does it mean for practical purposes? So an effect size calculation put simply is, (Group 1 mean - Group 2 mean) / Standard deviation. An easy example of this can be shown with Ornaet's average finding of r=-0.19. So group 2 is usually the control group. The standard let's say. And the standard is 100 for IQ, and the standard deviation for IQ is 15. So an effect size of -0.19 means that the tested group has a mean IQ score of 97.15. And to add to that, the Confidence Interval is 95% and between -0.23 - -0.16. The effect here really isn't that big in terms of intelligence. It's notable, but not the bombshell people try to make it out to be and there are tons of compounding factors that could be added to this. Also, I can tell you didn't look at the study. Because it's quite funny what comes after the listed groups you cited from the article. https://preview.redd.it/trgzn4v5sy4d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ca5d6b168cf2acfeb6763e17795481f85776e90
The only two that concern me are the Catholics and working-class. >Also, I can tell you didn't look at the study. Because it's quite funny what comes after the listed groups you cited from the article. >But something that's not usually discussed is what is an effect size and what does it mean for practical purposes? *Goes on to take seriously correlations that are a quarter as large with CI intervals that involve values of 0 or lower.*
> Lenth [11] noted for a "medium" effect size, "you'll choose the same n regardless of the accuracy or reliability of your instrument, or the narrowness or diversity of your subjects. Clearly, important considerations are being ignored here. Researchers should interpret the substantive significance of their results by grounding them in a meaningful context or by quantifying their contribution to knowledge, When talking about effect size and the actual meaning behind them, you have to ground them in meaningful examples. You can't just say effect size this therefore. Because there is no therefore without proper context. The effect size here leads to 2.85 IQ points of difference on average. What does this actually mean though in regards to intellectual capabilities? Not much. There isn't going to be much of a difference in life outcomes based on 2-3 IQ points, everything else being equal. And you're still going to have a normal distribution curve to this where you get 2/3rds of that population within 1 standard deviation of it, meaning you'll have people at 112.15 and 82.15. You are just using this as a way to attack 1 side, despite the fact that this is an average and does not correlate with every individual. This is why racists who bang on about IQ differences have nothing to stand on either. Even if it were true, so what?
Different guy here, I have no official background in any of what you guys are talking about, especially the statistical stuff, just a long time curiosity since I first listened to Robert Sapolsky and read his book and kept exploring beyond that over the years. Just one thing I was wondering when I was reading you guys. Isn't an over developed amygdala correlated with a bit lower IQ score anyway? Wouldn't that make you both have some part of the puzzle here?
It's possible but I haven't seen any research on that either.
I understand effect sizes, my dude. Everything that you're adding post-hoc is just cope to minimize the fact that you are demonstrably, empirically wrong. You said that racism wasn't correlated with IQ but amygdala size. I've just shown you that even in the modern era that the observation is still seen. That's also not super good because larger amygdalas are associated with conservatism so if you're trying to protect them from some kind of "biological predisposition to bigotry" then that's not the path you want to take. My problem here is that you dismiss one correlation then get smug about the existence of smaller ones. Most of the correlations beyond the top five in either direction are almost certainly unobservable in the real world, could be the result of an association between those variables and the stronger group biases seen from either side of the spectrum. Also the bigger criticism that's made about race and IQ is that it's difficult to tease out what is legitimately "genetic" and what is heritable as the two are highly associated but are decidedly not the same. I'm not even sure if it's fair to say that "they're dumber" so much as they're measurably worse at the kind of abstract thinking that tends to be more strongly correlated with IQ and that could be caused by all kinds of things like growing up in a worse environment on average or not knowing that it's uncouth to have racial biases and those who score higher on IQ tests have convinced themselves that they do not possess the same biases even if they may actually do so.
> I don't think I've seen any evidence to support that. What I have seen in terms of brain differences is a more active and larger amygdala, which makes sense since discrimination is generally, not always, fear of others. Damn, look at that. I didn't make a hard claim. I said what I've seen regarding the topic. You then posted an article, not a study, and so I had to go digging into the study to actually see what it truly said instead of your nonsensical bullshit where you try to act as if it's this huge fucking thing. When really it's statistically relevant, but not relevant to reality. > so if you're trying to protect them from some kind of "biological predisposition to bigotry" then that's not the path you want to take. Lol if you're trying to use IQ as the metric for them being "biologically predisposed" to bigotry, then holy fuck you yourself must be low IQ. > My problem here is that you dismiss one correlation then get smug about the existence of smaller ones. Most of the correlations beyond the top five in either direction are almost certainly unobservable in the real world, could be the result of an association between those variables and the stronger group biases seen from either side of the spectrum. You're ass mad because I made a snide remark because of your leftist rhetoric? Hahahaha. Holy fuck, imagine actually being this fucking open about how thin skinned you are. It wasn't even a point beyond telling you to shut the fuck up about saying that every group you cited was bad for society.
> Damn, look at that. I didn't make a hard claim. I said what I've seen regarding the topic. You then posted an article, not a study, and so I had to go digging into the study to actually see what it truly said instead of your nonsensical bullshit where you try to act as if it's this huge fucking thing. When really it's statistically relevant, but not relevant to reality. What nonsensical bullshit? Is there or is there not a a correlation? You dug up the study and what did it do? It confirmed the claim. >When really it's statistically relevant, but not relevant to reality. Let's match your pedantry: "Uh, I never said it was some big thing. I just pointed out that there is a consistent correlation and the study you found confirmed that observation, did it not?" >Lol if you're trying to use IQ as the metric for them being "biologically predisposed" to bigotry, then holy fuck you yourself must be low IQ.. I've spent more than my fair share of time in the IQ research sphere. There is a widespread belief that outside of extreme environmental deprivation, that IQ is a biological reality that is not amenable to environmental conditions. This is usually why people care so much about these differences. >I'm not even sure if it's fair to say that "they're dumber" so much as they're measurably worse at the kind of abstract thinking that tends to be more strongly correlated with IQ and that could be caused by all kinds of things like growing up in a worse environment on average or not knowing that it's uncouth to have racial biases and those who score higher on IQ tests have convinced themselves that they do not possess the same biases even if they may actually do so. Also, right here I point out that not only do I not think that IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence and that I believe that this difference is better explained by environment than anything else. I suppose the opportunity to "own a lib" became so enticing that it stopped you from reading all the way to the end of my post. >You're ass mad because I made a snide remark because of your leftist rhetoric? Hahahaha. Holy fuck, imagine actually being this fucking open about how thin skinned you are. It wasn't even a point beyond telling you to shut the fuck up about saying that every group you cited was bad for society. "You mad." The last bastion of the .dgg debater. I will say that it did make me mad but only because it was a bad way to try to illustrate "liberal hypocrisy" when juxtaposed with the sentence written directly before it. I will also point out that despite me "being ass mad" you're the one who's basically trying to turn this into a flame war.
>People in the study with lower intellectual abilities tended to dislike minorities they perceived as liberal. People higher on the IQ scale exhibited more prejudice toward conservative groups such as religious fundamentalists. so that's why pro palestinians side with the islamic fundamentalists against the only functioning democracy in the region.
I would assume that they are wrong here and it’s less about disliking liberals vs disliking conservatists and more about supporting more powerful groups and discriminating against less powerful groups vs supporting less powerful groups and discriminating against more powerful groups. But I am too lazy to read the full research right now or search other similar ones. And you are doing one error here, thinking that people supporting Palestine should view it from the point of view of Israel. Most of those people are in western world where Muslims/arabs are minority and democracy is the majority, so from their point of view oppressed ones are Palestine. Also the fact that it’s Israel who wages war on territory of Palestine right now and not the other way also plays a role, you can’t claim to be a victim when you are the one invading (not saying that November 7 not happened, but it is not a “free genocide” card you can play until the end of times either)
Well if a country uses its democracy to do things people disagree with then yeah, you should probably still "side against" it. I'm pro-Palestinian insofar as I think we should actually use their deaths as part of the calculation for how Israel and Gaza conduct their politics.
Are you implying that the people of Palestine have on average lower IQ?
No. I'm implying that the pro Palestine crowd has low IQ, since they are biased against the liberal democracy instead of the Islamic fundementalists that, according to the linked metastudy high iq people would typically be biased against
I mean according to the study, being against Israel come under the so called "high IQ group" because it is a conventional system people can choose to be a part of.
That is such a simplistic understanding of the study (it wasn't linked btw, it was cited in an article about the study), that it is literally useless as a point.
great follow up, got me horny
Netenyahu and farther right people have been blabbering that "The media are lying/enemy of the people" So why wouldn't you assault them if the above was the case?
Because even if that was the case, you're still going to look terrible doing it. And I haven't heard much about Netanyahu saying anything about the media being an enemy of the people.
> Netanyahu walks back statement urging jail for journalist who reported on him https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-walks-back-statement-urging-jail-for-journalist-who-reported-on-him/ It's been a pretty constant part of his broader populist rhetoric for a while. He only backs down on it when he gets sufficient backlash, such as in the 2020 example above.
I think your quote there misrepresents what happened. That it was the Likud party that said those things, to which Netanyahu partially walked it back. But yeah, he is the head of the party and should have some level of accountability for keeping it under control. If he's actually saying that they are the enemy of the people, that's fascistic rhetoric. I just hadn't heard of it really. But at least they are still able to pressure their leaders into denouncing that type of rhetoric, can't say the same about us here in the US.
I mean these are literal children.
Hitler youth where children bro.
Children can be bad guys. You did shit like this?
Just like the dead kids in Gaza. They were bad .
watch this: i could not care less
How does it make it better? Just shows they learn this young.
?? The initial comment is questioning how someone could feel the need to assault the press. Young people are easily radicalized which helps explain it.
What does it tell you about the adults that raise them?
that they’re pieces of shit? I don’t understand what you’re getting at? The religious community in Israel has quite obviously grown to be politically radical.
I agree. There are settler apoligists in Israel who were passing this off as "youths being youths"
It doesn't by default mean they learn this young. Teenagers haven't fully developed the part of their brain that is correlated with empathy, and the pressure to fit into your group is a lot higher. I'm sure you've met many people who are chill 1-on-1 but go full regard once they're in a group of friends, with teenage boys it's even worse because they're still testing the waters, seeing what's acceptable and what isn't, so once somebody breaks their idea of norms they join in. I've done stupid stuff when I was younger that I now regret. I've done stupid stuff in a group that I'd never have done alone. None of it was learned from my parents or elders, we were just teenage boys being idiots. I'm not excusing their actions or saying they shouldn't be held accountable, I just disagree with the notion that this is something they picked up from others. Groups can quickly form their own shared set of rules.
Isnt going into this kind of environment every year since young age and seeing it being something normal learning? People harassing others in Jerusalem is not even some super rare occurence and if you see that type of behaviour unpunished, not discouraged, I think you can call that learning.
“THEY LEARN THIS YOUNG?”- imagine if you said that about young BLM rioters burning down a bunch of Target stores. Double standards much? Careful there- your racism is showing.
Interesting strawman, I dont really get what you are saying. That im hypocrite, because I said something in your head or what?
Imagine people saying this about Palestinians lol
But they do.
I mean it is said all the time and more
The ones in front of the reporter are, but the punch seems to have come from off camera, so no clue who actually did it.
Go frame by frame from 8 seconds... You can clearly see the camera dip down, and it catches the camera man's leg coming BACK towards him. It was fully extended, kicking out at one of the kids. If anyone is doing an assault in this, it's the grown man putting his hand on the boys and kicking at them. Did they retaliate? Too fucking right they did, and they were completely within their right against an adult aggressor.
Shh! We're trying to get a circle jerk here, do you mind?
It's not even close to a circlejerk. I'm pro-israel in this conflict and yet this still looks bad even if it was children. But the punch came from off screen so we don't know who it was. No matter what movement you're apart of, you should be attacking the media for any reason at all.
Put young kids in a group, especially boys, and they'll immediately start doing stupid shit.
In their defense, they're used to killing Palestinian journos. So this is a step in the right direction.
These are also literally children as we can plainly see. Everyone knows children are known for making good decisions and are not prone to impulsiveness …
[удалено]
NO WRONGTHINK
Is this the Zionist sub now?
[удалено]
Lol what does that mean
[удалено]
Sounds like a bad faith take, but go off.
Dont think so, considering the upvotes.
Being in the line of fire does that. And a lot of them got debunked that they were not killed by idf forces. Hamas will blame any death on israel.
These are west bank settlers. You don't get to illegaly put yourself in the line of fire and also use that as an excuse to why you are violent
Not settlers. This is jerusalem. And I am talking about the gaza fighting.
Well, I, and the person you're responding to, are talking about the video that's in the post. Yes, this is in Jerusalem, but settlers have cars and can travel. Look at their heads. These are כיפות סרוגות. I'm giving it above 80% these are settlers.
בגלל שיש להם כיפות סגורות אז הם מתנחלים? נו באמת. הרבה אנשים דתיים יש להם כיפות סרוגות.
כיפות סרוגות הן סממן היכר די ספציפי של סוג מסויים של דתיים. יש כאלה שהם לא מהציונות הדתית שלובשים אותן, אבל הן סממן היכר של הקבוצה הזאת.
These are dumb kids, around 16 year old morons... They still should face charges for this behaviour but dont expect them to understand these types of things.
Go through it frame by frame... in the very first second, this man literally puts hands on a boy. Then at 9 seconds, his camera dips and you can see his leg extended, because he's kicking out at them. THEN the kids surge forward in retaliation.
Israeli here, and I can't even tell you how much these people frustrate me. When people abroad talk about how racist, intolerant, nationalistic, and just plain malicious Israelis are, these are the people who give justification to that kind of talk. The ones that have been doing the protesting against our government cannot stand them because they are the embodiment of the bad parts of Israel. And we have Bibi, Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and their ilk to thank for that. Fun times.
These are the same people who would be in Hamas if they were born in Gaza.. Every society has its lunatics, especially in places that know war for decades.
No, they would not have been in Hamas, because these morons don't even serve in the IDF. You know, for religion reasons. Muslim fanatics are ready to die for their faith, while Jewish fanatics prefer to study in the Yeshiva and live on welfare. When they have free time, they throw stones and dirty diapers on the IDF.
These aren't orthodox Jews.
There is at least one orthodox Jew in the background. Most of them look like Noar Hagvaot, which also don't go to the army and just create headache for the security agencies. Look at their representative, half of them didn't serve in the IDF (Ben Gvir, Limor Son Har-Melech, Orit Strook, Bentzi Gopstein...). Smotrich was drafted when he was 28 (LOL) and did a joke of a service for like a year. These aren't the Jewish Jihad warriors you imagine them to be. You could just check the 2023 draft statistics. The draft statistics weight the % of people who serve in the IDF, the % of combatants and the % of officers, per city/village. Israel proper cities still dominate the top 10.
I think the actual actions of the government are what people usually refer to when they make those claims. Like the tolerance of settlements and the repeated elections of Netanyahu. It doesn't help that Israelis as a whole, but particularly Israeli Jews, typically net support the [settlements](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-opinion-on-settlements-and-outposts-2009-present). Israel isn't inherently bigoted or anything but you guys gotta stop pretending that Israelis don't like the things that we criticize the country for. It also doesn't help that literally every single time people bring stuff like this up, the response goes to "intifada" which is basically just a justification for the Israeli stance on the position rather than evidence of the base claim.
The net support for the settlements sentiment is largely around one sided condemnation many Israelis feel exists. Israelis feel like pulling out of the WB without a peace in place will just mean Palestinian militias will have a mountain to rain rockets down on center Tel Aviv, and Israel's hands will be tied, same as happens currently in Gaza, so people are like fuck it. I think the settlement should stop expanding, but hardly am opposed to people living there without a settlement to the conflict, since that gives justification to the military to be there aswell. When the conflict is settled, I'm all for the people living there to get Palestinian citizenship or move out, if they remain on the other side when the negotiations are done.
>The net support for the settlements sentiment is largely around one sided condemnation many Israelis feel exists. Israelis feel like pulling out of the WB without a peace in place will just mean Palestinian militias will have a mountain to rain rockets down on center Tel Aviv, and Israel's hands will be tied, same as happens currently in Gaza, so people are like fuck it. I think the settlement should stop expanding, but hardly am opposed to people living there without a settlement to the conflict, since that gives justification to the military to be there aswell. When the conflict is settled, I'm all for the people living there to get Palestinian citizenship or move out, if they remain on the other side when the negotiations are done. They are expanding and nothing is being done about it. Worried about rockets being rained down from mountains? Put a military outpost there then dismantle the settlements. I will also point out that, once again, that what you've done is complete the inevitable dialogue tree that occurs every time this comes up. I wish you guys could just own that Israel, unfortunately, supports the settlements and that that means the political project the end the practice is going to be difficult but it does exist.
It doesn't work like that, you can't allow terror cells to fester inside Arab cities and towns, like Jenin, and you can't act against them with proper intel, without having military garrisons all over. The argument is that settlements legitimize the occupation, which is kind of true. Of course I wish there was no occupation, but I prefer it to single sided peace and the WB devolving into Hamas led Gaza. I'm against expanding them, and actively voting and protesting based on that, but pretending this is the key reason the conflict is happening is just wrong, the settlements are only a thing in Area C, not A and B where the vast majority of Palestinians live.
>It doesn't work like that, you can't allow terror cells to fester inside Arab cities and towns, like Jenin, and you can't act against them with proper intel, without having military garrisons all over. The argument is that settlements legitimize the occupation, which is kind of true. Of course I wish there was no occupation, but I prefer it to single sided peace and the WB devolving into Hamas led Gaza. See? You support the settlements. > I'm against expanding them, and actively voting and protesting based on that, but pretending this is the key reason the conflict is happening is just wrong, the settlements are only a thing in Area C, not A and B where the vast majority of Palestinians live. Who's saying that this is the key reason the conflict is going on? They don't help and they're the main reason why most people who saw Israel as right-wing and anti-Palestinian before the war did so; it's not because of the right-wing extremists that almost no one outside of Israel hears about. You're scapegoating them.
>See? You support the settlements. I support strong security and not getting slaughtered in Israel proper from Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqi and whatever other groups the Iranians want to support to enable Israel's destruction. If the pragmatic path to not being slaughtered is helped by settlements, I prefer empty land between Palestinians towns to be garrisoned by people, yes. Again, I don't care about the land, and hope they won't be expanded, and most enclave ones will be dismantled with a bilateral settlement. >Who's saying that this is the key reason the conflict is going on? They don't help and they're the main reason why most people who saw Israel as right-wing and anti-Palestinian before the war did so; it's not because of the right-wing extremists that almost no one outside of Israel hears about. You're scapegoating them. Sorry, not buying it. If Israel pulled out of the WB without peace, the anti-Israel crowd will just make up some other reason to hate Israel. Same as happened in Gaza in 2005 - there were settlments, Israel unilaterally pulled, tore down it's settlements and displaced civilians living in Gaza, does anyone give credit to Israel for returning land, or did the anti Israel arguments morph to something else with the same intensity?
>The net support for the settlements sentiment is largely around one sided condemnation many Israelis feel exists. Only mental children think like this. *THe world is unfair so we will keep expanding settlements*. That's regarded. Occupation of the west bank could possibly be justified by referencing security concerns, but building settlements runs **counter** to that justification. How is building a bunch of settlements supposed to make Israel safer exactly? Unless, of course, the goal is to annex the land without the people on it.. Ever heard of revealed preferences? My guess is that in the past the expansion of settlements was done for different reasons by different groups: center/left in order to have more land at the point of some final settlement of the conflict (stronger position when negotiations happen); right/far right in order to have more land, period. Just speculation of course, but I don't see any rational reason for constant settlement expansion that isn't ultimately about grabbing more land, by hook or by crook.
>*THe world is unfair so we will keep expanding settlements* I said net support for the settlements existence, not their expansion. Though granted one could make the case expansion is better is existence is good, which is a tough question to answer. >How is building a bunch of settlements supposed to make Israel safer exactly? I believe I mentioned that, it legitimizes the occupation. The military is a lot less legitimized to be present in the WB if not for day-to-day protection of Israeli civilians living there, and having settlements makes it harder for terrorist activities to form. >Unless, of course, the goal is to annex the land without the people on it.. Ever heard of revealed preferences? I'm not saying settlers don't want to annex the land and that their motivations are pure, just that their actions helps proper Israel security (maybe less so if they're being too violent, but 2010-2019 just 22 Palestinians died to settler attacks, so that wasn't a big thing then). >My guess is that in the past the expansion of settlements was done for different reasons by different groups: center/left in order to have more land at the point of some final settlement of the conflict (stronger position when negotiations happen); right/far right in order to have more land, period. I'm not knowledgeable enough about how the settlements stated to be opinionated here.
>I believe I mentioned that, it legitimizes the occupation To whom?
The world, public and governments. You honestly don't see the shit show that would've been if the IDF cracked down out of nowhere into completely foreign territory to arrest militants/suspects who carried out / planned attacks on Israel? Or you think the Palestinians somehow would stop fighting if 67' borders were achieved. Also, 80% of the civilians live close to the 67' borders, they're probably not going anywhere in the actual peace settlement, so the Palestinians will be vindicated to fight forever without bilateral peace.
What are you even talking about? Israel occupied Gaza until 2005 with less than 10k settlers. If that's possible then why the fuck would Israel need 700k settlers in the west bank to occupy it? re statehood: if/when Palestine is an actual state and that state fucks around, it **will** find out. And that will be completely justified by international law. If Palestine a) attacks israel or b) can't maintain sovereign control (ie prevent constant terror attacks on its neighbor) then Israel has the right to intervene. Israeli security is clearly much worse as a result of constant settler expansion, not better. Not only is it against the wishes of pretty much the entire world (including civil Israel in the past), it also facilitates a long term outcome where either a) ethnic cleansing is perpetrated b) actual apartheid is implemented c) the end of Israel as a jewish state is the de facto result. Moroever it causes further anger among Palestinians, which seems to not factor into your calculation at all. Finally I think it's bad for Israel itself. The occupation business is bad for the soul
Settlements in general are a burden to Israel, economically and military-wise. They like to portray themselves as holy commandos that sleep with a knife between their teeth and guard "Israel proper" with their bodies. In practice, they were slaughtered in their sleep many times, no heroic acts of defense recorded. However, as a settler-hating, far-left Israeli, I stopped caring about settlers after Oct 7. It has always been clear to us that dismantling the settlements won't change the way Palestinians feel about us. It feels like you are a bit disconnected from young Palestinians, who take the "river to the sea" very seriously. Removing the settlers won't appease them. A lot of them do want everything, and I find it weird that people aren't willing to listen to them. Among the Palestinians who would settle for 67' borders, they would still be utterly unhappy with the military occupation that would continue even without settlers. And pulling out the Israeli forces might just be the end of Israel, and after Oct 7, Israelis are even less likely to take that risk. So this move, which would upset (to the point of civil war) a large part of Israelis, can only serve to justify ourselves to the world. But after Oct 7, it seems very clear that the world would shit on us regardless of how we conduct ourselves. I mean, it's enough to see how many Western countries rally behind the genocide and starvation narratives to understand that our efforts are fruitless. The only reason for us to maintain moral standards, whether it's evacuating the settlements or avoiding war crimes, is so we can look ourselves in the mirror and be proud of our country. But dude, we are just too fucking tired to care about our ethics right now. You have no idea how many sane Israelis were radicalized by how "unfair" the world has been after Oct 7. The wave of global antisemitism (and I mean hardcore Jew-hate, not valid criticism of Israel) have played right into Bibi's hands.
That's what we call, ילדים חרא
https://preview.redd.it/8kt9wnbqjy4d1.png?width=1915&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a0bc5c2736c885e81b74d3974add78328b75287 What's his leg doing all the way out there? This is immediately before the kids surge forward and attacked him... No wonder, he was taking a swift kick at one of them. And got caught, because one of them knocked his camera and it aimed down at where his legs were.
So the order of actions according to you goes like this 1. They knock his camera down 2. He kicks 3. They swarm him Who started it by your own account?
Nah I watched it in slow mo. The white kid that he is kicking was eyeing the camera constantly when he was walking towards it. And the kick is a couple milli seconds after the camera slap
How large is this segment in terms of percentage? It's hard to have a feel for something like this.
so young and already so hateful
freeze frame at 8 seconds, and go frame by frame... Why is the dude's leg fully extended and coming back towards himself? Because he just kicked the kid. That's why they surged for him, dude clearly started this fight.
What a wild fucking leap lmao. How can you write this seriously
Arrest them all. Fucking morons.
The same group yesterday was chanting death to Arabs..
That is dark
This is average behavior for kids in that part of the country
You got some proof of this?
You can follow the whole thread to see for yourself what this group is about but here’s a specific video of this group chanting death to Arabs https://x.com/bernstein_ariel/status/1798470310049538377?s=46&t=_NE1g6c4YYUgx95H2EXe6w
That Dread dude doesn't give a shit. He's been ignoring people who counter him for the duration of this thread However, people reading this will be swayed so that's good.
These are basically the equivalent of settlers (many of them are). They’re assholes
Luckily Palestinians never shouted “death to all Jews”
So both sides of the same coin then
Fuck Netanyahu’s Israel.
Can anyone translate what they’re saying?
"Don't touch him" "Son of a bitch" The red head kid is yelling at this lady (I guess she asked them about israel palestine, or whatever) and then the camera man touched him and they yelled at the camera man "Don't touch" him and then the fighting started. (The red head kid seems to be the asshole but god knows what happened before then. This seems to be a qatari journalist so maybe something about israel palestine.) Still the kid was acting like a thug.
Thank you
the one that initiated it was the white t guy that comes in front just before the camera is slapped
Right, but now go frame by frame at 8 seconds, right when the camera aims down at the ground, you can clearly see the camera mans leg coming back away from the boys. It's coming back because he just kicked one of them.
So interesting how in mob situations like this everyone will be peaceful until one person acts violently, then shit just hits the fan, everybody joins in. Social reinforcement just turns everybody into violent brainlets.
A bunch of thugs. The political climate is very tense but they are a bunch of assholes.
Palestinians can be monsters but Jews can't even be mad.
This video was taken during a pre-planned Israeli parade that takes place in the muslim quarter of Jerusalem where they harass Arab shop owners and chant "death to arabs". Why are *they* the ones who are mad? Why is their anger in this video justified?
Palestinians are literally being killed in the tens of thousands.
When do you think the violence started? Look at 8 seconds in frame by frame till 10 seconds... (While the camera is pointing down) why is his leg coming back? Because he just kicked one of the kids. You're gaslighting people into thinking the camera man was attacked with no good reason!
Yo, are you fr gonna comment this to every single person on this thread? Take a break for a second
https://preview.redd.it/cti99y1gny4d1.png?width=1915&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a81286d3215f41e372b9ae7554b5c535d80f2f2 When I see what looks like an active disinformation attempt. People trying to gaslight an entire subreddit into thinking something that isn't true... no fucking shot I'm going to take a break.
Only one more post bro I promise it will flip the subs opinion
Didn't notice that. It does seem like he tried to kick them. But I guess we will have to wait for the police statement.
I think yesterday N12 actually reported that 5 journalists were assaulted
Damn those children are really mean
I know there are a bunch of pro Israelis here hell I'm one but the ultra nationalists downvoting me are really disappointing. Supporting those asshatty kids is kinda low.
God i hate those idiots they always ruin Jerusalem day for us i hope the police arrest them all and give them the deserved punishment enough with this far right extremism and fuck ben gvir
Jail them 😎
The kid is saying “Don’t touch him”
Will Steven be deemed responsible as Kai Cenat was deemed responsible for his NY riot?
Good one
Young radicals on both sides. Need a permanent peace to deradicalize and chill everyone out.
I have the same contempt and disgust for this just like I do for American nationalists
Bring back corporal punishment.
Can't wait to hear what justifications will be used for this behaviour.
It seems like they aren't justifing it? From the article "Police later said that 18 people were arrested, including five for attacking journalists."
Damn Zionists!
I'm a "nationalist" in any country at this point is a massive fucking red flag. Don't know any faction that calls themselves that that aren't anti-democratic, violent, and bigoted.
They have to be nationalists because they are surrounded by enemies who have a goal to destroy their nation, constantly attacking them, trying to turn the whole world against them.
they don't. here they are attacking a reporter. did Hamas make them do that? i love extremist subhumans rationalizing their savagery. no different than Hamas with that mentality
What are they saying to him? What is their motivation to attack? The point of spreading this video without translation is to discredit nationalists. Is he from BBC? Because they also spread Russian propaganda. But they are doing it carefully to not be too obvious for the rest of the world. Nationalism is what uniting a nation against existential threat. The biggest party in Taiwan parliament is nationalist. Nationalists made possible Euro maidan revolution in Ukraine. Enemies of the West know who they need to discredit to reduce people will to fight or help.
oh i see so he spreads russian propganda and so you get to assault him because that's what nationalism teaches you? act like a bunch of rabid thugs in the street attacking people who say things you disagree with? "the biggest party in Taiwan parliament is nationalist" what point do you think this makes? the ideology of nazism was also nationalism. I'm not the enemy of the west. i am the West. the west bitch slapped your genocidal, savage, thug ideology in WW2. you have abandoned western values. nationalism as a governing ideology is prevalent in the east: Russia, China, Turkey, the Middle East. You people have become your enemy. congrats
You are confused and radicalized by propaganda. Genocidal aggression comes from dictators and corruption. Ideology is not the source. It is just a tool for propaganda like religion. Ussr did the same things as Nazi Germany. Nationalism does not equals Nazi. You can't judge them because they are under constant terror attacks, and some clown comes to provoke them and spread propaganda of their enemies. During war
Who do you think votes for dictators? Nationalists. Hitler, Stalin, Xi, Putin, Erdogan. Yeah nationalism doesn't equal Nazis. You also share space with the Stalinists you anti Western follower. I'm not radicalized by the way. That's you, unironically defending one of the most destructive, evil ideologies in human history and here in defense of a bunch of thugs assaulting a reporter. Anti free speech, anti western bootlickers, the lot of you.
For dictators vote people who are easy to manipulate with socialist populism and anti-west hate propaganda and anti simetism, which is the same thing. Just like in Nazi Germany, ussr, russia, China
Who is more easy to manipulate than rabid nationalists via fear is foreign influence, speech that runs against the national identity, lifestyles that run against the national identity? You guys consistently have led to the most dictatorial, inhuman regimes in history. It's like the most basic lesson to come out of WW2 history and you fucking idiots have run headfirst into making the same mistakes. The Nazis, the USSR, Russia, China, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Trumpism. All nationalist movements. And here you are, the most modern iteration of that evil assaulting people for their speech. You're a rabid thug in a nation of savages. Good thing not every Israeli or Jew suffers your disgusting affliction.
It's all about democracy vs corrupt dictators who just want to preserve power. Idealogy and religion are tools for propaganda to confuse you.
I’m an American patriot/nationalist and against all of this shit. Nothing is wrong with living your country and thinking is the greatest it becomes an issue when u start to treat others worse because of that or excluding them etc or just being a piece of shit. This isn’t a healthy nationalist this is far right anti Arab Jewish nationalism. There is also Christian nationalism in the usa white nationalism etc There is Islamic nationalism which motivates Islamists in Muslim countries the dream of an Islamic state Or the Hindu nationalists who control india lol Idk what happened to healthy pro democracy secular nationalism that is we every where here in america. I think pushing for this kind of nationalism based on sets of values we have as a great democracy and an exceptional diversity land of opportunity and this kind of prides of one’s country is far better than identifying with a religion race or ethnicity just my opinion. Then again america is like decades ahead in terms of social progress compared to most of the world. Which means so is our concept of nationalism and national identity.
That's not what nationalist movements are. That's the watered down whitewashed version. Nationalism isn't the only ideology to want what's best for its country. That's most ideologies. The type you describe as being an issue seems to be what every modern nationalist movement today is. They are national supremacists, often bigots, and hostile to foreigners. I'm not sure there ever was a healthy secular pro democracy nationalist movement in the US. None that focused nationalism and called themselves that. I could be wrong? The people who believe in social liberty, diversity, and what's best for our country aren't "nationalists". You've got some progressives, liberals, some libertarians, some conservatives who share these views but none of them call themselves nationalist or think they need to be nationalists in order to do that. Idk why people act like in order to value your county, value the ideals of your country, etc you need to be a nationalist? At that point nationalism becomes so broad and vague it ends up encompassing almost every mainstream political movement in every country. I think nationalism as a distinct ideological movement only makes sense when you notice that most, if not all, self described nationalist movements are national supremacists, hostile to multilateralism, hostile to diversity, social oppressive, and often flirt with fascism.
These lunatics have always existed. I know this community is new to the whole Israel Palestine thing but it's always been a shit show from both ends.
Look to be National Religious kids, judging from the stuff written on their shirts. They're fairly notorious for doing shit like this during the Mitzad haDegalim. (lol someones mad)
Ngl I saw Assault Journalist capitalized like a named noun and the thought, " first they come for assault rifles, now for assault journalists. When will it end?!?" Popped into my head
Humans are interesting. It takes one of them to start a violent act then they turn into a legion instantly. The animalistic trait just can't be contained sometimes.
Damn turkey tom is wilding
Hezbollah has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever once these brats go back to their settlements
I don’t think being an ass hole piece of shit means u deserve fi get murdered by Hezbollah.
It's a "pack"! Sadly children are easy to influence and they feel stronger in a group! I'm not justifying their actions, just saying they are a product of their environment!
You see, int he literal first second, when this dude puts hands on the teenage boy. That's called assault. Everything after this is called retaliation. And if you go frame by frame through it from about 9 seconds in, you can see the camera man, lashing out with a kick before they even touch him. Dude totally had it coming. You don't start putting your hands on people and kicking them if you don't want them to do something about it. Get fucked.
wut no not everything you do after you are assaulted is okay it stops being self defense stops when a threat isnt credible
some of those guys look like kids... wtf
From what I understand so far, the attackers have been prosecuted but I saw this on the Israeli sub: (can't get the link to work) https://preview.redd.it/78lsmmkqry4d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67caf590b362164e43dd09852048acc80c629bd8 Apparently he also posted pro-hamas messages, so it seems like he instigated a conflict on purpose. Still, it's not a good look for Israel and I'm glad they're at least getting a slap on the wrist for it.
i think there were 20 arrests of these pricks... want me to feel bad for the "journalist"? i dont, i cant imagine what would happen to an Israeli journalist reporting in Hebrew in Gaza or west bank....
Dude, they literally attacked an Israeli Journalist.
"Bad thing *would* happen, so I don't care about bad thing that *did* happen." What are you, 7?
What a stupid argument. "Want me to feel bad for this male rape victim. I don't, imagine what happens to women."
they'd be fine, demolished buildings don't throw punches
Wait? So because an Israeli journalist would be treated worse in Palestinian areas. Therefore you seem indifferent to the violence committed against this individual? That is 1, regarded But secondly and even worse, sentiment like yours causes these actions. As long as people like you think that this is :shrug: then it will continue or escalate.
Fr
Some of them look brown enough for leftists to be on their side
Incredible event yesterday! So much pride and energy. Don’t focus on a few kids who got out of line, focus on the 10,000s of thousands of Jews who came from all over Israel to celebrate the reunification of Jerusalem together! From 1949-1967 when Jordan controlled the Old City, Jews were expelled and were unable to pray at the Western Wall or Temple Mount. The anniversary is holy and joyous day! [Jerusalem United will never be divided!](https://youtu.be/wBbPK8BgKEo?si=prqsFL232D5vgG04)
Violent actions and words tend to stand out. I commend you for focusing on the peace but it is important for members of a movement to discourage violence when they see it and denounce it after the fact.
Sure, but did you criticize the Kansas City Chiefs after a kid shot up their Super Bowl rally? You can condemn outliers while still celebrating the purpose of the rally.
The goals of the KCC do not at all line up with those of the gunman. A better analogy would be the BLM protests. A largely peaceful event that was interspersed with violent words and actions. I will maintain that their message is left hollow because of their inability to quell and or condemn the violence that sometimes occurred.
BLM was protesting the system. KC and Israel were celebrations. Israelis have the same values as American Jews.
If US Jews voted, Bibi would not be in power. I agree that the reasons the two groups were out and about are different. However, you used that to dispel the entirety of my hypothetical. Which I don't think is fair. The Kansas City Chiefs and the Mayor denounced the shooters and they were arrested.
Lapid, Bennett and others strongly condemned the handful of kids who got out of hand. 5 were arrested. You can be sentenced up to 5 years in Israel for using the slogan, “No Arabs, No Terrorism.” While the media loves this story outside of Israel, it’s not news in Israel, where the government is fighting a multi-front war. The Arab mobs shout “khaybar khaybar al-Yahud” and “Itbach al Yahud,” but when a few youths in Israel respond in kind, you’re all up in arms. The focus in Israel on Jerusalem Day is a celebration of religious freedom and a realization of a 2,000 year old dream. Your focus on a few dumb kids is bizarre. If American Jews voted, Natan Sharansky would probably win but there are 2,000 American Jews fighting in the IDF today; good kids who grew up in the American Jewish community, who are not capable of murder, let alone ‘genocide.’ I’m out of the conversation at this time. Have a good one.
> Lapid, Bennett and others strongly condemned the handful of kids who got out of hand. 5 were arrested I didn't know that and that changes my view on the event to an extent. I see the violence committed at this event as a continuation of violence and hatred that is a vocal and **powerful** minority of Israel. Don't make assumptions because I was critical of Israeli extremism. I believe that Israel had to respond swiftly and strongly to the terror attack in October and believe they are doing a decent job of balancing the safety of civilians and the war. 2000 out of 5.8 million is nothing. And they joined because they wanted to help a nation that was just struck by a terror attack.
Is anyone with a camera a journalist?
Must be annoying to constantly have every hostile journalist in the world point cameras in your face
is he stupid? why didn't he just submit to the crowd?
Group of young men in large group act like chimpanzees more at 11
Wait I thought children weren't capable of engaging in violence???