It’s a great novel, but not a love story.

Israel is a country. Fascism is a type of government.

You can want the end of the fascist government without wanting the end of the country.

A two state solution is one possibility, but there is no strict requirement that it is the only or best way to serve the needs of those involved.

It’s true. But it’s not for us to decide.

I think you didn’t understood me. I’m criticizing Israel. It’s a criminal state.I just say that to criticize Israel and saying that Israel.shouldn’t exist are two different things.

Israel is a lot of things, but not an ethnostate. Falashas and Sefardim aren’t white, and they’re recognized as citizens as much as Ashkenazim, at least legally (there is racism between Jews in Israel too, but it’s the case everywhere).

I don’t understand why Israel is the only criminal State in the world that progressive people want totally destroyed. Russia, Iran, Syria, … are imperialist criminal states too, and progressive people “only” want their government changed. I want the fascist government of Israel overthrown, but I have no right to call for the destruction of the country itself. The only difference is Judaism.

If the Jew people of Palestine want the independence, who are we to deny it? The only moral solution in this case is the two states solution.

Thus you’re denying the right of self determination for the Jew people. QED.

It would be replaced by what?

I never saw a strong international pressure to make Israel comply.

The goal should be the two states solution. It won’t be possible if there isn’t a strong international pressure on Israel. Again, Israel is a criminal state and should be treated as such. So is Russia, and nobody publishes memes on how Russia has no right to exist.

Denying the Jews the right to self-determination that all other peoples have is antisemitic.

Israel is a criminal state that should be stopped. But we can do that, we should do that, without antisemitism.

You’re a stereotypical Reddit atheist 😅

All religions by definition disagree with others and believe the core beliefs of the other religions to be false.

Not necessarily. God by definition, as the creator of the universe, does not abide by the universe’s laws. Thus it’s possible to say two opposing things about God which are both true, and nothing you can say can be perfectly true as the limited language can’t describe the unlimited.

“No God before me” can have, and does have in the history of Christianity, three possible interpretations.

• the exclusivist one (Evangelical churches mainly): the Christian God is the only God, you have to confess him directly to be saved.
• the inclusivist one (mainly the Catholic church, and some Protestants), the Christian God is the only God, but you can unknowingly pray him when you pray an other God within other traditions, in other words you can be Christian without knowing it.
• the pluralistic one (other Protestants), most religions are equally valuable, but if you are Christian you should pray only the Christian God.

Of course this is just a model, all positions are deeper than that and most people mix two or even the three models. I don’t know where the Orthodox Churches stand.

For myself, I tend to be somewhere between the second and the third model.

Username checks out.

Antizionism ≠ opposition to the Israeli politics. One can be Zionist and against this genocide, against colonization, against Netanyahu and for a Palestinian state. Antizionism is an opposition to the right of self determination for the Jewish people, and that’s antisemitic.

I mean… I could use Jonathan Archer.

Once, I listened what some people said on the Internet, and I tried Arch. I came back to Manjaro, but I learned a lot so I’m not unhappy with the experience.

However, to say that there’s no reason to use it over Arch (I don’t know about Endeavour, I never actually used it) is just wrong. Maybe you don’t like the differences, but they are important and useful for someone like me. When I installed Arch, I needed to tinker it for hours before having something usable. I don’t want to tinker, I want my OS to work, even if it means other people made choices for me, as long as I can revert them; that’s what Manjaro offers. For example, I love GNOME, but only with some plugins, like dash to dock. When I installed Arch, GNOME made an update which broke a lot of plugins, included dash to dock; while Manjaro waited for dash to dock to work to push the new GNOME. Some issues may be pushed, but a lot of others aren’t. I prefer to have one big update twice a month instead of having to update and tinker again my OS possibly every day.

Manjaro is far from perfect, no distro is, but for people like me, it works very well, and better than Arch.

I don’t get the hate for Manjaro, TBH. I never had any problem with it, and I used it as my main OS for a few years now.

34 :-)